I didn't see the trial, so I don't have an opinion whether the verdict was justified on the facts. But more pertinent to me is what strikes me of the infantilization of people who should be considered adults. According to this news report, the "kid" holding the party was 18 years old. Two "teens" who died in a crash by the parents' driveway were also 18, and they apparently left the party, smoked pot, and then got into an accident when they returned, which surely makes it seem like these kids had access to intoxicating substances regardless of what their friends' parents did:
"This is a case about the disturbing lack of parental responsibility," Fisz said. "These defendants want you to believe they had no idea what was going on in the basement, despite the fact that they were one staircase away the entire night."
Fisz and lead prosecutor Christen Bishop spent much of their closing arguments on blasting the Hutsells for allowing drinking in their home.
"These are not kids who are flying under the radar screen," Bishop said. "These are parents who turned the radar off. They were the weak link in the parenting chain that night."
The Hutsells' defense attorneys, Robert Gevirtz and Elliot Pinsel countered these claims by telling the jury that their clients did not know the teens were drinking and that they never saw alcohol.
Gevirtz told the jury that his client, Jeffery Hutsell was an upstanding person and would not idly sit by and allow kids to drink.
"The only question is did he know (they were drinking)? It's not what he should have done. It's not what he could have done," Gevirtz said. "The kids made their own decisions. They made the decision to drink, they made the decision to go to the car and smoke dope."
You would never know from the quotes from either the prosecutor or the defense attorney that the "kids" involved were eighteen. I recognize that for many purpose, the age of majority is twenty-one, and of course responsible parents shouldn't allow underage drinking in their home, not least because it's illegal and can get them in trouble. But spare me the notion that eighteen year-olds should be considered "kids," passing off responsibility for their actions to "parents."
What purposes are these, other than the drinking age?
I also question the logic of holding the parents of 18 year olds liable for their actions. In a previous age, these "kids" would have been married and have had kids. In short, fully adult, including all the responsibilities and rights that go along with that.
"Parents have a duty not to enable teenagers to break the law," Lake County Assistant State's Attorney Christen Bishop told jurors before they began deliberating. "There's a duty to be vigilant, not to turn a blind eye."
Perhaps they should now go after the deceased teens' parents for failing to supervise their children in the purchase/consumption of marijuana?
What the hell is a "drinking party"? I went to quite a few high school parties in my day, and everyone one of them featured alcohol consumption, but I can tell you that I never went to a so-called "drinking party."
Is the article supposed to make us believe that the sole purpose of going to this party is to drink alcohol? And if so, how does it differ from the infinite number of social events that include the consumption of alcohol in a social environment? When you turn 21 do "drinking parties" just become cocktail parties or dinner parties?
As per the post, we do not know whether the facts adduced at trial support the charge or not. Assume they do. Why is it so crazy to have a rule that if a homeowner knowingly permits a drunken bacchanalia at his/her house and then someone drives off and gets into a car crash, that the homeowner bears some level of guilt? It does not sound so unreasonable to me. That would be true even if we are speaking about full adults -- all the more so for 18 year olds, who while technically adults are still quite immature.
Even more egregious than the above example is the Left's use of "our children" to attack the GWOT. "Our Children" referring, naturally, to the 18-45 year old, 280 pound warriors fighting Islamofascism around the world.
And of course this doesn't work, resulting in cases as the above or a recent one in Virginia in which the parents received lengthy jail terms for permitting underage drinking in their home.
Instead, I think, 18-y/os should be given a choice between which licenses they want to hold: Drinking OR Driving. Any mixing of the two should be harshly punished (I'm also for harsh punishment for adult driving under the influence).
I realize that much of America and American life is built around the automobile. Getting around without a vehicle is tough except in urban environments, and even there (viz. Washington, DC) public transportation isn't sufficient.
But privileges come accompanied by responsibilities, acknowledged or not. Having to choose between drinking or driving is not beyond the abilities of an 18-y/o. Living with the consequences of the choice might be tough, but far better than combining the two privileges.
In my family it was customary for children as young as six to get a small sip of Dad’s beer at family gatherings and we were allowed half a glass of wine at Christmas by about age 11 or so. I think the operative words are “under [parental] supervision” which seems to be the problem here. I think the problem for the parents was that they testified that they didn’t know there was any alcohol (which was contradicted by the testimony of the three of the teenagers in attendance who received immunity for their testimony) even though their son had been busted twice in the last nine months for minor consumption but warned the attendees not to drink and drive. I thought it was a bit of a stretch to convict them of obstruction of justice for throwing out the empty beer cans and bottles though.
That said, the parents were idiots.
I would argue that the homeowner may have some level of *fault*, but not some level of *guilt*
They didn't purchase or serve the alcohol in question, and the 'lynch mob' is out already on this one... just what we need to save the world more people in jail.
So, for example, if kids go out to dinner with their parents and family and they serve wine, the parents can allow the young adults to drink a glass of wine and it isn't illegal, even though the children are under 21. Ditto for religious ceremonies.
This would mean that:
1. This statement is false "of course responsible parents shouldn't allow underage drinking in their home, not least because it's illegal and can get them in trouble."
2. Parents would be liable for whatever happened, since they gave their consent.
Also, while 21 is NOW the standard drinking age (in THIS Country), people need to remember that not so long ago it was 18 in several states. In 1972, I went to College at Michigan State, where the drinking age was 18 for everything. Even after returning to Illinois for the summer after my freshman year, I could join my high school buddies on a road trip to Iowa (about 60 miles away), where 19 year olds could buy beer. So which is more dangerous, parents allowing some alchohol consumption by 18 year olds in their homes, or a State encouraging teens from neighboring states to drive 60, 80, or 100 miles to the tavern just over the State Line for a night of legal drinking?
Tell me how this makes sense?
My favorite line on subject of the 21-year old drinking age comes courtesy of Mojo Nixon address the 18-year olds:
"You can get married and [mess] yourself up real good, but you can't buy a beer!"
I don’t agree, evidence of prior criminal misconduct by the accused can sometimes be excluded if it’s used to prove that the accused has committed the crime again but I don’t believe FRE 404 prohibits it from being used to prove that the accused (parents) had knowledge of another party’s (son’s) criminal tendencies. In other words they might be able to use it against the son if he’s charged with underage drinking but it wouldn’t protect mom and dad from being charged with allowing underage drinking in their home.
Still think the parents should be let off the hook?
This is probably a law which should be strictly and harshly enforced, so that it will be repealed more quickly. It is unjust to hold the parents criminally responsible for the activities of the legal adults whom they have no obligation to support (the actual age of majority being 18 in every jurisdiction in this country), and over whom they have no more legal control than they would have over a tenant in their own house.
Sure, the parents have some moral culpability here. They knew their kid had a problem with drinking, they clearly knew their was a bash going on. I went to parties like that in high school myself, and saw similar parents. But one should not be held criminally liable for the acts of another adult, which is what this act does. If the policy generally is that house parties shouldn't exist, then we should likewise hold landlords responsible for their tenants' parties.
Reminds me: were the parents of the Columbine killers held liable for failing to notice their kids were building bombs in the garage, not to mention violating the National Firearms Act by sawing off a shotgun barrel?
:)
I think you are mistaken wrt Illinois, although your point is taken that in some states there is no exception for parental consent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_drinking_age
Other states one or the other is OK; other states neither matters.
The entire impetus for a return to 21-year old drinking ages came from MADD - the Mothers Against Drunk Driving - because of the number of teenage alcohol-related driving deaths.
Having grown up in a wine-making family where children drank wine with meals from an early age (and undiluted by the time they were 10-12, usually when they started complaining about the water in their wine), I always thought the 21 year old age was stupid. It was stupid in 1965 and it's stupid today.
I would have been the one who chose to drink, and I would have been the one who chose to get behind the wheel of a car. I would have been old enough to make that decision for myself. No matter how many adults, or friends of mine told me not to, or how many DARE classes I went to, I would still have made that very bad decision.
I know there is this whole theory about how adults somehow have control over 18 year olds, but the thing is, they don't. What they have is the illusion of control. And we can all sit around and pretend that parents somehow have some magical force by which they control their 18 year old kids, but it's just not true.
At 18 if your kid listens to you it is because they recognize what you are saying is correct. If they don't, then it is because 1. they are too stupid to know that you are right, 2. you are wrong 3. they know you are right but think they can get away with it anyway. But beyond telling them not to drink and drive, what exactly are you supposed to do?
No, it’s allowed:
THe one that bothers me more, though, is the corrolary that says even though my kids in college are on my medical insuarance, the [medical office] cannot talk to me even to get the insurance billing fixed..."because they are 18"
Second: The son's landlord drops by, knows the tenant and his guests are 18, and doesn't intervene. Is the landlord guilty?
Second: The son has a job and is renting a room in the parents' basement. Are the parents then responsible?
The conclusion I come to is that the parents don't have the legal authority to prevent their over-18 children or guests from doing anything the children choose. I suppose they could kick the kid out, but how is that considered better parenting? As long as they are not providing the alcohol themselves in violation of the law, I don't see how they can be criminally negligent.
The concept of "in loco parentis" is silly when the "child" is legally an adult.
...and even though you are paying tuition, you can't get access to any of their academic records, because they are 18.
Not a fan of holding people responsible for the actions of others. Even if 40-year-olds drink and drive home after a cocktail party, the host is still responsible. At bars, the rule makes more sense: a bartender should be trained to note the signs of intoxication, has complete control over the liquor, and is not drinking himself. How on earth we would expect a host or hostess to constantly monitor their guests' alcohol consumption and prevent them from driving home if they drank too much is beyond me.
In closing, the defense lawyer boiled it down to the question, "Did the father know what was going on?" The jury obviously did not find the defendant credible.
Be careful what you wish for – the Illinois legislature just bumped up the offense for which the parents were convicted from a Class A misdemeanor to a felony. As far as whether it was “unjust” to hold a host responsible for allowing an underage drinking party to occur on the premises, a lot of people disagree with that. For many the actions of the parents (and the kid) were indefensible and they are unwilling to allow the hosts to evade responsibility by deliberately looking the other way. In which case while some may think the laws are unjustly harsh, there appear to be many more who don’t think they’re strict enough.
2. The reason we have such an enormous problem with underage drinking is this country is that we thoroughly and harshly forbid it; that is, children have NO exposure to it at all (by law), then, at 21, well... have a good time! That's just plain stupid. In the rest of the world, children may drink whatever their parents allow them to, and a gentle introduction to alcohol (as Thorley Winston portrayed) is fairly common (with most of the rest not needing any introduction, as they are around it constantly from birth).
5. ("Three sire!" "Three!"). I thoroughly second PatHMV's point about "legal adult" and "tenant" issues... when I was in college, I lived at home with my parents during the summers, but I was an adult, responsible for my own behaviour; I did not ask them for permission for any activity, except as it related to them (that is, I bhaved as a good tenant).
4. 18 is the age for voting and buying tobacco (among other things), but "adulthood" is a staged process, which can begin as young as 13 (I knew a 13YO who had successfully filed for separation from her parents, worked after school, and paid for her own apartment - yes, there were extenuating circumstances, and yes, she received some aid money to help with stuff, but she could DRIVE! among other things). Alcohol is restricted until 21... UNLESS you are a soldier, in which case you can buy and consume alcohol on military property starting at 18. You are not FULLY autonomous from your parents until you are *25* (unless you have filed certain legal papers, and even then, it doesn't always stick) - they can get access to your finances, you can consider them as income for the purposes of financial aid for college, etc. It simply isn't one moment.
I’m not an expert in DUI law but I’m guessing that a social host is probably held to something akin to a “reasonable person” standard. They’re not held to be a guarantor that none of their guests drink and drive or drink illegally but at the same time they cannot evade responsibility by remaining intentionally ignorant which based on the media accounts, seems to be what the parents in this case did. It’s one thing to say that the parents didn’t notice someone spiked the punch and another to say that after going down to the party three times they didn’t notice their underage guests drinking from beer cans while bottles of Captain Morgan were strewn about the place.
I agree that many people in our society have a problem with alcohol abuse (e.g. binge drinking in college) however most of the laws (such as the one in Illinois) seem to explicitly allow the situation such as in my own upbringing where I got a sip of my Dad’s beer at age 6 or the other poster who grew up in a family where even the kids had wine with every meal. I don’t think therefore the law really does prevent any parent from giving their child a “gentle [and supervised] introduction to alcohol” because most of the legislatures who have drafted these statues seem to have made a specific allowance for that situation.
The article mentions a 17-year-old who was at the party, who was probably the "endangered child".
Is obstruction of justice really a crime? I'll have to check to see which way the wind is blowing. Maybe they'll get a pardon.
A few points:
1) Kudos to TW for citing the specific "in loco parentis" statute on alcohol. In most states, similar laws exist for members of the family--not sure how many use the "in loco parentis" language.
2) It is ironic that the drinking age went up to 21 in most states after the voting age dropped to 18. Some states had 21 as the drinking age all along and others had differentiated thresholds for beer and other alcohol.
3) The prosecutors whined about a "duty not to enable". I see "enabling" as buying alcohol for the "kids" or allowing them use of the "liquor cabinet"--and even then, one should add "irresponsibly". But merely being present in the house while someone is drinking qualifying as "enabling" is ridiculous.
4) Deerfield is a fairly affluent suburb and I suspect that the families of the kids at the party--including the ones who died--are not poor. This is likely what led to the portrayal of the host family as "villains" and the other parents as "victims". The reality seems to be the opposite, in most cases. By the way, how long was this driveway that the Jetta hit a tree at the end of it with sufficient speed to kill the occupants?
5) MADD was not responsible for the raise in the drinking age--it was merely one of the factors. Insurance companies contributed to that as well. But MADD was responsible for many state laws making the host or a bartender responsible for the actions of a drunk guest. But there has to be a direct connection. This is why the prosecution was not directly for the deaths of the two idiots who were returning to the party.
6) This is not the first case where parents were held liable for the drinking of "kids" in their home. In most other cases, however, the adults actively served alcohol or were directly aware of the consumption and did nothing to stop it. Here, they either did not know or did not want to know.
7) Alcohol does not seem to have been a factor in the crash--even with 0.08 alcohol level, loss of control of the car to the extent of hitting a tree in a driveway is not likely. How stoned were these Darwin Award nominees and how fast were they going?
8) Lesson learned--VW is not a safe car.
Yes. The "kids" are in fact emancipated adults. The parents are no more responsible for those "kids" than they are for you.
9) Rich B.--no, if parents did not know that their children were terrorists building bombs in their basement and the "kids" made at least some effort to conceal their activity, the parents would not--or, at least, should not--be referred to as "terrorists". See my "enabling" point above.
10) Take a look here. If you thought the Hutsells responsible, after reading this, would you still hold the same opinion?
According to this story, the driver’s blood alcohol level was 0.132.
The location of the tree also bothers me--one story referred to the crash as being "nearly a block away" from the house, which means that the tree was not in the driveway. Aside from that, the comments on Deerfield stand.
This article on the toxicology report suggests that the driver didn’t have any marijuana in his system but the passenger who was killed did. Also I apparently missed this detail but the son who hosted the party (the primary instigator) was one of the three prosecution witnesses who was granted immunity for testifying against his parents. I suspect the “emancipated” son may soon be the “disowned” son.
I’ve never been to Deerfield but almost all of the articles I’ve read place the tree at the end of the driveway or described it as being “feet away from the house.” Could they have one of those long driveways like some people in the country do?
Funny. I was thinking the same thing.
A criminal trial is an expression of the State's power to monopolize the administration of "justice" in our fine land. The defendant is a citizen and the prosecuting party is the State. The argument was that the parents refused to be tools of the state. To that my response would have been, well, think of the slang term commonly used today (especially in heated discussions) that begins with "F" and ends in "U."
I would have argued jury nullification and the ninth amendment prohibits the Federal Gov't from using its power to force States to adopt laws that abridge the rights of its citizens. (All states had to raise legal limit for drinking because a bunch of nimrods in DC decided that was the way to "save lives." Of course, statistics show otherwise, but since when does anyone in DC - aside from Ron Paul - care about the truth?
As for the two boys, their death reminds me of something a teacher told me once. He said having me around was a blessing because whenever he wanted to make a point of what NOT to do, he could just point to me and my actions. Hooray. Anyway, these two Darwin Award Winnters have probably saved quite a few lives. Their fine example will motivate teenage dopers to exercise a little restraint around trees.
I hope Gore delivered a stirring eulogy for the tree.
My parents can't control me now, nor could they then. They can tell me not to do something, or perhaps throw me out of the house or something similiar, but if I choose to drink, I made that choice.
If I can vote on laws that involve alcohol, vote for politicians who make rules on alcohol, get married, drive, enroll in the military, and pay taxes to enforce these laws... then why can't I drink?
Yes, drinking and driving, it's awful, etc, etc, but to me, the issue is that driving is a privilege and instead we need to make sure that if someone gets a DUI, just ONCE then they will never drive again. Period. Instead of baby-sitting legal adults.
Are you talking about moral responsibility or legal responsibility. Legally, the parents could kick an alcohol-dependent 18-year old out into the street. Perhaps the unintended consequence of prosecutions such as this is that parents now have a incentive to do so, because they will not be charged with criminal negligence for the actions of their adult children.
I would guess that you don't have any 18-20 year olds living in your house. A parent can't REQUIRE an 18 year old to do anything -- they are legally adults. You CAN use "My way or the highway" if things are really, really bad, but that's not usually the most desirable (or effective) way to handle matters.
The answer: Leave home for the night, since if some rabid idiot prosecutor learns (by giving immunity to the son, and tricking the evidence out of him) that you, the parents, knew that adults were drinking downstairs, YOU will get screwed. But if you were 40 miles away, drinking cocktails with friends and playing bridge, or spin the bottle, YOU cannot be held liable....
Of course, if it gets out of hand, you are not there to stop the house being trashed....Remember 'Risky Business'?
Anyone want to bet, BTW, that the son was given immunity concerning HIS having given drinks to the dead driver (not a crime anyway) and the son let it slip that dad had come downstairs... The police are not your friend, nor is a prosecutor.
Do the parents of the negligent teenage driver also bear some responsibility? According to your logic, I would say so. Were they asked how many times they told their child not to drink? Not to drink and drive? To call them if they were intoxicated and needed a safe ride home? Even if the answer is 100, 500 or 1,000 times - they cannot control the actions of their child.
If the teenage adult driver of the car had survived the crash, he would be the one facing criminal prosecution. But he didn't and now the Hutsells have been convicted of a crime. This is a tragedy, but I fail to see the criminal negligence.
Where is the <i>personal responsibility</i> of the driver and passengers in this case? The others in the car chose to drive with this person, despite his drinking. They left, smoked some pot and were returning to the party when the driver's negligence caused grave results.
So why are the Hutsells criminally negligent for a legal adult's (and his passengers') mistake?
With regards to the (usually) civil cases of bars/patrons - there is a large difference between intoxication and rip-roaring drunk. You can easily assess the latter, the former is much more difficult. There is a huge difference when serving customers between people who are drinking and people who can barely stand straight/pronounce a drink correctly, etc.
Question: Do we know whether more drinking was done between leaving the house party, smoking the doobs and returning?
Thanks for the correction. I had Googled, but I did not do a thorough job.
If it was my boy, of course I would have encouraged him to, nay, insisted that he gain immunity at my expense! It's not as if there was any great moral fault, and in most parts of the civilised world, there would be no technical crime either.
It's not a case of "letting him face the consequences of his own actions in the hope that he will be rehabilitated from his folly". It's about "Hmmm... some jail time for me, or having my son's life irretrievably blighted by a law that is
brain-deadquestionable?". Not exactly a tough choice.The fact that the parents had to consider this kind of thing makes the whole situation even more morally repugnant. "Disgusting" is not too strong a word. In a wider context, it breeds disrespect for the law too, something that is never good.
Good point, although you aren't considering the effects upon other siblings. If the teenager has younger siblings who are not of age, then the parents' incarceration would harm the other child - who, be it noted, did nothing wrong. Would you want your kid in foster care?
(Of course, the fact that one would have to consider such nonsense underscores the point in your last paragraph.)