The latest result of “zero tolerance”, the policy designed to enable people who ought to be wearing chest nametags and saying “You want fries with that?” to pass themselves off in three-piece suits and say “I’m in charge here.”:
The article isn’t very clear – it says that she “didn’t party” but then later seems to admit that she was at a party where alcohol was being consumed. The intent of the rules seems to be that student athletes, should they find themselves at a party with alcohol, should leave immediately, but the specific wording is very poor. I’m sure she has a case.
On the other hand, they’re filing a lawsuit over a 5-game volleyball suspension? Oy.
It’s a lot harder for an underage drinker to call a parent and ask for a ride home because they’re drunk. Punishing unintoxicated students for sober cabbing their drunk friends doesn’t solve the drinking problem and it will exacerbate the drunk driving problem.
I can’t believe the reporter didn’t ask the lawyer to articulate just what this “stand” is.
Actually, even that would be insufficient in Pennsylvania. When my daughter was sixteen her mom dropped her off at a party. When my daughter entered and realized there was alcohol, she left the party and walked home. While she was walking, the party was busted and kids ran every which way.
My daughter was stopped by police. She blew 0.0%, but was cited for disorderly conduct when she refused to tell who was at the party. I hired a lawyer and got the charge dismissed, but the judge told us that she could be charged with an alcohol offense by simply being present, even if she left the moment she became aware of the presence of alcohol.
Obviously, their stand is that the partygoers should drive drunk, thus removing themselves (and some collateral damage) from the gene pool and decrease the surplus population.
They’re going to lose, but it’s not that unreasonable. One of the functions of the judiciary is to shape public policy, and if this suit results in reversal of this ridiculous policy, so much the better.
So, here in sunny southern Cali, if a bunch of gang clowns decide to gun each other down, I am also facing murder charges? Just for being in the vicinity?
I think that judge is a fvcking idiot and should be removed. Same goes for those zero tolerance school bureaucrats.
“No good deed shall go unpunished.”
Zero Tolerance = Zero Thought, Zero Intelligence, Zero Good Judgement
(Blame also all the times in the past kids from the “right family” got away with it while other less fortunate kids got busted. This was the easy answer.)
In a more serious tone, it seems they are standing for the position that “people should have no way to avoid negative consequences or mitigate their bad decisions”. They’d rather have Erin tell her friend, “sorry, you deserve to be in trouble” and in their twisted logic that will help curb teen drinking by making it clear nobody will help you avoid being potentially arrested or even killed.
I wonder if any girls posting to Facebook nasty notes about what a drunkard the other girl is and such, would be subjected to disciplinary action, or it would be seen as kids being kids…
In principle, I agree with the sentiment, but in the long term, this might be the best course of action. Schools adopted zero tolerance policies to avoid lawsuits. If they’re still be sued despite them, maybe they’ll stop adopting them.
Which will give school administrators more opportunity to flex their authority. See how that works?
I remember as a teen in the '90’s that “zero tolerance” was a big issue - it seems to have been as big an issue back then as it is now.
The problems that were raised back then, and still seems to be central, is that zero tolerance rules:
- Do not account for intent or knowledge. In adult criminal law, the mental element is essential for almost all offenses - there must be some sort of mens rea or scienter for a person to be guilty. E.g. if Random Adult borrows a friend’s car and gets stopped by police and the police find drugs, it is a defense that R. Adult honestly had no reasonable idea that there were drugs.
- Zero tolerance does not allow for discretion. With adult criminal law, police, prosecutors, and judges have some leeway in determining what cases truly deserve punishment and what cases just represent some trivial deviation from the letter of the law that does not meaningfully harm anyone (e.g. de minimis non curat lex).
I remember as a kid that there was a school assembly (you know, where everyone is herded into an auditorium or gym to listen to the principal yap) where one of the staff casually handed a box to one of the kids and asked the box to be passed across the row of seats. After the box had traveled some distance, it was announced that the kids ought to have opened the box to check for drugs first, since if there had been drugs, good faith was no defense and you would receive an automatic and mandatory punishment that was quite severe. Seems you would have been guilty of distribution under school policy, since distribution did not require any minimum volume of drugs, any minimum number of recipients, or any sort of expectation of payment. Simply handing one pill to a friend made you a Drug Dealer. The penalty for distribution was more severe than just bare possession, you were talking about immediate suspension probably leading to year or more in a Reform School for kids with disciplinary problems if you didn’t get flat out expelled. This was around 1995 in Virginia.
They can charge you with conspiracy to commit murder too. Getting a conviction out of it is entirely different.
I can’t imagine what crime she could be charged with.
[QUOTE=Wikipedia]
A person under the age of 21 may also be arrested, charged, and convicted of underage drinking through constructive possession, even if they had not consumed any alcohol, simply by being in the presence of alcohol.
[/QUOTE]
…
Just looked at a couple of legal advice sites and both say being within reach is not sufficient for constructive possession. Googled ‘charged with constructive possession’.
So it’s probably the luck of the draw.
I share everyone’s disdain for zero tolerance policies. However, in this case I think she deserves the punishment. She wasn’t pulled over giving her friend a ride home. She was in the party when it got busted up.
She claims that she was just there looking for her friend to give her a ride home, and it’s probably true. But the rules are you shouldn’t be at a party where alcohol is served, and she was. If she gets a pass with this story, every kid will simply claim they are just a designated driver to get off.
I think this was a case of unfortunate timing, and that sucks for her. But she went into the party where she knew alcohol was being served.
She should have had her friend waiting at the street to be picked up.
Also, her only punishment was missing five volleyball games? That’s hardly worth suing anyone over.
When I was a kid I got a five day suspension for fighting. My parents congratulated me and were proud of me, since the situation was I took on two kids my age who were beating up a much younger kid. He was in my patrol in Boy Scouts so I felt obligated to help him.
There’s right and there’s legal, and they aren’t always the same. But like I did this girl should just take her medicine. Her parents seem to be supporting her, just like mine did, so it’s all good.
Alright hoss, if you want to take Wiki’s word for it. Jurisdictional variances don’t exist anymore? That’s an awful shaky cite that you didn’t even link - so something tells me it’s not cut and dried as the quote would make it appear.
Plus, I’d love for some douchebag prosecutor to press this charge against my daughter. It’d be pretty easy to take it to the court of public opinion, and have their reputation hung from the stake.