What were these teens thinking?!

[goodeats]

I can see why the kids were angry, but it was incredibly stupid of them to put the website up.

I have no problem with underage drinking, and think the drinking age should be lowered to 19 (since there are 18 year olds in high school which then gives access to 14 year olds). I didn't drink in high school, but in college I drank well before my 21st birthday (even had a fake id). What the girls did at MSU, besides the website, is completely normal.

I do agree this judge had some sort of 'vendetta', but the girls did need to learn respect.

 

[jodifla]

I'm not trying to sound preachy, but try telling that to the parents of Corey Domingue , a 19 year old LSU student who died from alcohol poisoning a couple of years ago. I'm sure his parents would have rathered him spend 30 days in jail instead of eternity in a coffin.

How is this at all the same thing? Lots of kids drink. Very few drink themselves to death.

The girls weren't drunk at the prom, they'd had some sips of whiskey.

 

[DisneyPhD]

I can see why the kids were angry, but it was incredibly stupid of them to put the website up.

I have no problem with underage drinking, and think the drinking age should be lowered to 19 (since there are 18 year olds in high school which then gives access to 14 year olds). I didn't drink in high school, but in college I drank well before my 21st birthday (even had a fake id). What the girls did at MSU, besides the website, is completely normal.I do agree this judge had some sort of 'vendetta', but the girls did need to learn respect.

So because it is completly normal, that makes if ok.

In my opinion that is at the source of the problem. Adutls accepting something that is a major problem as normal and there for looking the other way.

 

[goodeats]

But I don't see that it's a major problem. Sure drinking and driving is a major problem, alcohol poisoning is a major problem, but a 20 year old having some beers at a party, to me, is not a major problem. If it wasn't illegal there would be less incentive to binge on it anyway.

 

[perdidobay]

You break the law, you pay the fine (or time).
Minkydog, you are a great Mom... unlike the parents of those girls in the article.
After reading it, it proves that you can have all the "book smarts" in the world, but if you don't have "common sense" you are still stupid.


jodifla, I have to disagree with you,
If you read the article it said she "blew a .02" which is the the amount for underage limit. She was drunk under the law. She admitted to drinking underage, which is against the law.
Sure, I went to school in the days when 18 year olds could drink... and lots of high school kids died from driving drunk, or were injured for life....why do you think they rasied the age limit?? To be "meanies"?

 

[jodifla]

You break the law, you pay the fine (or time).
Minkydog, you are a great Mom... unlike the parents of those girls in the article.
After reading it, it proves that you can have all the "book smarts" in the world, but if you don't have "common sense" you are still stupid.


jodifla, I have to disagree with you,
If you read the article it said she "blew a .02" which is the the amount for underage limit. She was drunk under the law. She admitted to drinking underage, which is against the law.
Sure, I went to school in the days when 18 year olds could drink... and lots of high school kids died from driving drunk, or were injured for life....why do you think they rasied the age limit?? To be "meanies"?

I think they raised it because of political pressure from the neo-prohibitionists in this country. A good dose of cough medicine will have you drunk under the law.

And I don't think it does a bit of good....if we taught kids how to drink responsibly at a young age, as is done in Europe, it would lose its forbidden appeal.

Make alcohol hard to get...and they come up with ecstasy.

 

[SpaceMonkeyMC]

How is this at all the same thing? Lots of kids drink. Very few drink themselves to death.

The girls weren't drunk at the prom, they'd had some sips of whiskey.

Whats interesting about that is that if a kid who drinks themselves to (or near) the point of death were in a courtroom, they would probably recieve the same punishment as a kid who had a sip of whiskey. How would you say this fits in with your scheme of "punishment fits the crime"? should there be an allowance for modulation of the severity of a crime such as this like there is for, say, murder?

As far as whether or not they deserved their punishment, you are adamant about the fact that their punishment did not fit the crime. However you're overlooking the sequence. Their first punishment was very in line with the crime (and typical punishments handed down throughout America) The school's punishment is a different issue. Only were they given severe reprimand after they were found to have violated the law again. Evidentially and undeiably as they readily admitted it to the world through their website.

So, does that punishment exceed the crime for a second offense? How many offenses do you think someone should be allowed before they get a sever punishment for violating "draconian laws"?

 

[Rajah]

The part that I think was a little above the top was removing the girls from everything they'd worked so hard during their school career to obtain: honor status, placement on the soccer team, etc. That, I'm afraid, is what fostered their attitude against the system.

I totally support the judge on all that he did, but I'm not sure about the school's reaction in the first place. Maybe it was right, maybe not. I don't know how much they were warned ahead of time, so I don't really know. I just think that may have been what started them on the downhill spiral.

 

[Sandy V.]

I think they raised it because of political pressure from the neo-prohibitionists in this country. A good dose of cough medicine will have you drunk under the law.

And I don't think it does a bit of good....if we taught kids how to drink responsibly at a young age, as is done in Europe, it would lose its forbidden appeal.

Make alcohol hard to get...and they come up with ecstasy.

Yeah, the infamous "Nyquil Defense". When I was a DA, I saw more than my fair share of these!!

We can argue all day about whether the drinking age should be lowered and how much less tempting booze would be if you did, but as to the facts that we have here:

1. The girls violated Michigan state law.
2. They were caught and prosecuted.
3. The judge imposed an initial sentence consistent with that received by similar first time offenders.
4. The girls made the volitional decision to not only violate the terms of their sentence and, again, violate Michigan state law by drinking, but they also chose to mock and insult the sentencing judge on a public website.
5. They were caught in this violation by the same judge who sentenced them.
6. Said judge imposed a harsher sentence for the violations, which included jail time.

I honestly don't see why anyone would think that what the girls did wasn't a big deal. The website is especially the part that bothers me - my teens would catch heck from DH and me if they were brazen enough to be this disrepectful!

 

[disney junky]

The part that I think was a little above the top was removing the girls from everything they'd worked so hard during their school career to obtain: honor status, placement on the soccer team, etc. That, I'm afraid, is what fostered their attitude against the system.

I totally support the judge on all that he did, but I'm not sure about the school's reaction in the first place. Maybe it was right, maybe not. I don't know how much they were warned ahead of time, so I don't really know. I just think that may have been what started them on the downhill spiral.

As a former coach and honor society advisor, I think the school has to withdraw them from these positions. Honor society isn't just about grades, it's about leadership and character; those are two of the qualities for induction. If we say what we say with SADD and MADD, if we do Prom Promise and stage accidents to demonstrate to the students the ramifications of their decisions, and then we just wink at these behaviors, what message are we really sending? Will we stop teens from drinking? Probably not, but if we can make one or two think about their decision and save a life, it's worth it.
I must be a neo-prohibitionist.

 

[maleficent1959]

Yeah, the infamous "Nyquil Defense". When I was a DA, I saw more than my fair share of these!!

We can argue all day about whether the drinking age should be lowered and how much less tempting booze would be if you did, but as to the facts that we have here:

1. The girls violated Michigan state law.
2. They were caught and prosecuted.
3. The judge imposed an initial sentence consistent with that received by similar first time offenders.
4. The girls made the volitional decision to not only violate the terms of their sentence and, again, violate Michigan state law by drinking, but they also chose to mock and insult the sentencing judge on a public website.
5. They were caught in this violation by the same judge who sentenced them.
6. Said judge imposed a harsher sentence for the violations, which included jail time.

I honestly don't see why anyone would think that what the girls did wasn't a big deal. The website is especially the part that bothers me - my teens would catch heck from DH and me if they were brazen enough to be this disrepectful!

Those are pretty much the facts of the case as I saw it. For me it doesn't matter how drunk they were, they knew what the consequences of their actions would be if they were caught. And they were caught.

For me a "teachable moment" (as stated by one of the student's mothers) would be to teach my child to accept the punishment and take responsibility for their actions. Not to p*** and moan about how unfair it is that they get punished at all. Why should an honors student receive preferential treatment? I guess that's the kind of teachable moment that mother expected.

If either of my DSs pulled something like this, even if I thought the school was too strict I'd support the school. Again, they knew the consequence.
And if they were stupid enough to so publicly violate the conditions of their "parole' like that, I think my attitude would be more "what the he** were you doing?" than "My poor baby. The bad man is just out to get you."

 

[chell]

I'm tempted to print that article and suggest that it be copied and passed out at the high school come Prom time! My kids are young, but I will be discussing this with my daughter as a lesson for the future!..............P

Sounds like a wonderful idea!

 

[Disney Gator]

But I don't see that it's a major problem. Sure drinking and driving is a major problem, alcohol poisoning is a major problem, but a 20 year old having some beers at a party, to me, is not a major problem. If it wasn't illegal there would be less incentive to binge on it anyway.

Most intelligent post I've seen on this whole thread.

For the record I DO condone underage drinking. Teaching kids to respect and understand alcohol is the best way to prevent dangerous "binge" drinking. Let them have a glass of red wine with dinner sometimes, maybe a beer with dad while watching the game. You can't expect kids to ever drink responsibly if you never teach them how.

 

[jodifla]

Yeah, the infamous "Nyquil Defense". When I was a DA, I saw more than my fair share of these!!

We can argue all day about whether the drinking age should be lowered and how much less tempting booze would be if you did, but as to the facts that we have here:

1. The girls violated Michigan state law.
2. They were caught and prosecuted.
3. The judge imposed an initial sentence consistent with that received by similar first time offenders.
4. The girls made the volitional decision to not only violate the terms of their sentence and, again, violate Michigan state law by drinking, but they also chose to mock and insult the sentencing judge on a public website.
5. They were caught in this violation by the same judge who sentenced them.
6. Said judge imposed a harsher sentence for the violations, which included jail time.

I honestly don't see why anyone would think that what the girls did wasn't a big deal. The website is especially the part that bothers me - my teens would catch heck from DH and me if they were brazen enough to be this disrepectful!

Two notes: As a prosecutor then, you'll say you prosecuted ALL LAWS equally??...I say this because while everyone is saying how this is against the law in Michigan, no one seems to be punishing all these folks who are living in sin, which is equally against the law. Why enforce one and not the other?

Secondly, I can agree with your numbers points except 4. Until prosecutors and judges do away with it, there's still freedom of speech in this country. THey have a right to say what they want, and to feel what they want. (I'm not talking about the drinking, which violates their probation.) I don't think it's against the law to mock the judge and the sentence all they want.

Why drinking was perfect legally when I was 18, why it's some sort of federal case to ruin kids lives today with this "zero tolerance" nonsense, just escapes me. I see it as the political pressure of our time.

Again, these kids weren't drinking and driving. Fail to see the danger to anyone but themselves, and at .02, not even to themselves.

 

[tandrjohn]

To his credit, Judge Martone truly believes he is doing what is right for the city of Troy, MI. Because of him, Troy probably is a safer place from drunken drivers and underage drinking.

The problem is, this is his crusade. No matter what the circumstance, no matter what the details, if your crime revolves around alcohol and you stand before him, you're definitely going to get dumped on, oftentimes way more than you deserve. The details surrounding the situation are merely window dressing - not totally important to him. Does he stay within the law and his enforcement of that law? Of course, but he pushes the limit to the max.

The most frustrating thing about this is that his goals are not in line with what a judge's goals should be. His goal is to send such a message with every sentence he hands down, that he deters others from attempting the behavior. As a judge, his job is NOT to send a message with every judgement. His job is to weigh all of the details and hand out punishment fairly.

Let's be honest, despite what many studies like to tell us, almost all college students drink. Many of those students drink a lot. This is the college culture and if a student can still handle his/her business, this does not constitute a problem, despite Judge Martone's way of thinking.

Was this girl really stupid to put up pictures of herself and friends drunk on the web while she was on probation? Yes. Was it even dumber to direct comments at Martone? Yes. Does that deserve punishment? Probably. But let's not kid ourselves and think the 30 day sentence was about anything other than a bruised ego and a crusade.

I have respect for what Judge Martone has been able to accomplish but I think his methods need some serious reevaluation.

 

[horseshowmom]

I have to respectfully disagree. I'm also a parent. I have an 18-year old DD and an almost 16-old DS. If either one of them pulled this stupid stunt, I would be supporting the judge. The punishment fit the crime perfectly.

For a former high school honor student to take the TIME to thumb her nose at the legal system and create this obscene website took an incredible amount of nerve and arrogance. What a complete waste of energy. And for what?

I also respectfully disagree with the "everyone does it" mentality; thus these kids shouldn't have been punished for experimenting. Attending prom and graduation ceremonies are privileges, not matter of right. A school district is within their rights to prohibit attendance if certain rules aren't followed-rules designed for the safety of everyone. Our high school also has "screeners" at the prom to watch for signs of alcohol consumption, etc. If my DD is stupid enough to do this at her prom this spring, then she deserves to get kicked out.

One of the things that it seems (to me) to be lacking in many people nowadays is the concept of shame or embarassment when they do something wrong. Instead, they're the victim, filled with righteous indignation towards an authority figure who has the guts to give them "consequences". Sad.

 

[declansdad]

I love the way people can turn these discussions around on a dime.


The initial sentence the judge handed down was more than fair for a first time offender. To say that it wasn't because university students drink is a stretch. The punishment wasn't going to be applied for the rest of their life but while they were serving their time, so to speak.

The problem with the website is not one of free speech. Sure they could put up a site complaining about their punishment and the judge. That would be within their rights. The problem is that the photographs they posted showed them drinking and being around others who were drinking. This violated the terms of the sentence and opened them up to be brought before the judge again. As someone said before, the purpose of a sentence is to act as a deterrent and teach a lesson. Well obviously these girls didn't learn anything from the punishment.

 

[Debbie Jean]

Those are pretty much the facts of the case as I saw it. For me it doesn't matter how drunk they were, they knew what the consequences of their actions would be if they were caught. And they were caught.

For me a "teachable moment" (as stated by one of the student's mothers) would be to teach my child to accept the punishment and take responsibility for their actions. Not to p*** and moan about how unfair it is that they get punished at all. Why should an honors student receive preferential treatment? I guess that's the kind of teachable moment that mother expected.

If either of my DSs pulled something like this, even if I thought the school was too strict I'd support the school. Again, they knew the consequence.
And if they were stupid enough to so publicly violate the conditions of their "parole' like that, I think my attitude would be more "what the he** were you doing?" than "My poor baby. The bad man is just out to get you."

As the mother of a 19 year old, I totally agree with you and Sandy V.
The expression that comes to mind here is "the apple doesn't fall far from the tree". The problem here is a lack of personal responsibility... guess where they learned it?

Lesson #1: you CHOOSE your actions
Lesson #1: actions have consequences

 

[horseshowmom]

As a former coach and honor society advisor, I think the school has to withdraw them from these positions. Honor society isn't just about grades, it's about leadership and character; those are two of the qualities for induction. If we say what we say with SADD and MADD, if we do Prom Promise and stage accidents to demonstrate to the students the ramifications of their decisions, and then we just wink at these behaviors, what message are we really sending? Will we stop teens from drinking? Probably not, but if we can make one or two think about their decision and save a life, it's worth it.
I must be a neo-prohibitionist.

 

[Sandy V.]

Two notes: As a prosecutor then, you'll say you prosecuted ALL LAWS equally??...I say this because while everyone is saying how this is against the law in Michigan, no one seems to be punishing all these folks who are living in sin, which is equally against the law. Why enforce one and not the other?

Yes, I prosecuted all laws equally in the complaints that were filed in the courts I worked in. Remember, except in rare instances, DA's Offices aren't involved in active investigation of crimes as they are happening/before arrest.

You keep mentioning this "living in sin" law in Michigan, and quite frankly, I'm not sure why. To me, it's one of those dumb archaic laws on the books, sort of like the ones where you can't ride donkeys on Sundays (as an example). Very rarely are opposite sex and living together statutes prosecuted ANYWHERE in the U.S. As long as consenting adults are involved, most people see it as a victimless crime-including cops, prosecutors, and judges.

I don't think you can say that alcohol violations are totally victimless crimes in every instance. Sometimes, yes, they are. But most of the time, the POTENTIAL to harm oneself or others is there. So I don't think that alcohol violation laws are either dumb or archaic. Hence the difference.

And I don't think these girls' lives were ruined. Maybe the judge had a hand in preventing the girls themselves from ruining them. I personally think that they are fools and have learned little from their mistakes, unfortunately.