To Disclose Or Not To Disclose: That Is The Question.

[MJS]

Read this in todays paper.

CHESHIRE — - It was bad enough when police charged their teenagers with underage drinking at a house party.

But when parents picked up the local newspaper and saw their kids' names published in a story about it, well, that was embarrassing.

Parents are divided over the police department's long-standing policy of releasing the names of 17- and 18-year-olds charged with possession of alcohol. Although some believe that the practice helps fight underage drinking, others say that it is embarrassing and unfairly publicizes minors whose names should be kept private.

"You can pretty much tar a kid. I don't think it's a deterrent at all," said Jackie Sima, a member of the Cheshire High School Parent Teacher Organization.

I will say that this particular town, is one of the well to do ones, here in CT., so in a way, the first thing that entered my mind upon reading it, was, "Oh God forbid, someones name gets tarnished in the perfect little town."

So, this begs the question....should the papers put the names of the kids and parents in the paper, when they are arrested for underage drinking? I found this interesting as well:

Police don't release the names of 16- and 17-year-old minors for most offenses because they are considered youthful offenders under state law. However, there are exceptions to the law for certain offenses, such as possession of alcohol by a minor, police said. Anyone aged 15 or below is considered a juvenile and would not be identified, police said.

So shoplifting a $10 package of makeup may not be a crime worth putting in a name, but drinking does fall into that category apparently.

Of course, I was shaking my head at this:

Cheshire police admit that the policy is controversial, especially because the high school suspends students charged with underage drinking from extracurricular activities, including sports teams.

Well, IMO, dont do the crime, if ya can't do the time. Of course, I do see where some parents are coming from...their kid is there but not drinking, but still gets in trouble. Well, guilty be association, I guess. Its really no different than if I was in the backseat of a car, driving with 3 others. I fall asleep, and they decide to rob a liquor store. We get pulled over, I wake up, am thinking, "WTF is going on??" and get hauled to jail...for robbing a store, even though I was sleeping. Do you really think the cop is going to believe that? I'm going to have a hell of a time proving I didn't know what was going on. So, same thing here.

Personally, I say post their names. If someone isn't going to learn their lesson my getting a slap on the wrist and no name in the paper, why not post them? Maybe that shame will have an effect on them.

 

[Frostbite]

Maybe that shame will have an effect on them.

I don't think shame is an effective way to treat underage drinking, mostly because I don't think there's anything shameful about enjoying a drink. The problem lies in binge drinking. Generally speaking, in countries where youths are exposed to alcohol at a younger age, you see less of an incidence of underage binge drinking and many experts believe it's because exposing children to controlled amounts of drinking in a family environment makes drinking less taboo. When you make people feel like they're being immoral or doing something shameful, it doesn't make their act go away. It just drives it underground.

Moreover, do you really mean to tell me that the people passing these laws didn't do some underage drinking themselves? Trying to score alcohol when you're under 21 is practically an American pastime--just look at all the films made where that plays a central theme! I think I had my first full beer at 13 and stole sips of my parents' beers even earlier than that. I didn't even really understand what alcohol was when I was young. I was just curious to try it because I wasn't allowed to have it.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

2 words: Personal Responsibility.

 

[CoryKS]

I don't think shame is an effective way to treat underage drinking, mostly because I don't think there's anything shameful about enjoying a drink.

Maybe not but there is, or should be, something shameful in breaking the law. At least for decent folks. True, some people you can't shame. They're not the ones making this policy controversial because they don't care.

 

[MJS]

I don't think shame is an effective way to treat underage drinking, mostly because I don't think there's anything shameful about enjoying a drink. The problem lies in binge drinking. Generally speaking, in countries where youths are exposed to alcohol at a younger age, you see less of an incidence of underage binge drinking and many experts believe it's because exposing children to controlled amounts of drinking in a family environment makes drinking less taboo. When you make people feel like they're being immoral or doing something shameful, it doesn't make their act go away. It just drives it underground.

Moreover, do you really mean to tell me that the people passing these laws didn't do some underage drinking themselves? Trying to score alcohol when you're under 21 is practically an American pastime--just look at all the films made where that plays a central theme! I think I had my first full beer at 13 and stole sips of my parents' beers even earlier than that. I didn't even really understand what alcohol was when I was young. I was just curious to try it because I wasn't allowed to have it.

For clarification, I never said that it was shameful to have a drink. It seems to me that many of the parents in that article have a concern over their kids names being put in the paper, one of the reasons was due to sports in school. My point was, if your name was plastered in the paper, so that everyone saw it, sure, it just may embarrass the people enough to not do it again. Maybe it wont, but if it didn't, I'd imagine the parents wouldn't be so concerned about it.

Again, nothing wrong with having a drink, as long as you can control yourself, and we all know that isnt always the case. Yes, I'm fully aware of what other countries do. I grew up in an Italian household, so yes, there was always wine, etc. on the table.

As far as the people passing the laws drinking when they were young...I think it'd be foolish to say that they didnt, just like an off duty cop who speeds or one that does drugs. So, on duty, these are the things you're supposed to enforce, but off duty.... Yes, I follow what you're saying.


The point of this whole article....I'm assuming you read it before commenting here...is whether or not to put names of offenders in the paper.

 

[Frostbite]

As far as the people passing the laws drinking when they were young...I think it'd be foolish to say that they didnt, just like an off duty cop who speeds or one that does drugs. So, on duty, these are the things you're supposed to enforce, but off duty.... Yes, I follow what you're saying.


The point of this whole article....I'm assuming you read it before commenting here...is whether or not to put names of offenders in the paper.

Yes, I read it. I think my stance on printing their names should be pretty clear from my response. I agree that there should be consequences for breaking the law but I also think the law is stupid to begin with. And as far as enforcing the law vs. following it, not only were many of these people probably underage drinkers, but the underage drinking laws have gotten tougher just in my own lifetime--I imagine they were even more lax in these lawmakers' teenage years.

Just like drug use, prostitution, and other so-called "vices," I think underage drinking becomes more dangerous the more illegal it becomes. Not to mention the fact that considering the fact that they're putting underage drinkers' names in the paper but not, as you said, underage shoplifters, it seems pretty clear that this is all part of a few lawmakers' weird moral agenda.

 

[Frostbite]

Maybe not but there is, or should be, something shameful in breaking the law. At least for decent folks. True, some people you can't shame. They're not the ones making this policy controversial because they don't care.

I drank underage even though it was against the law. I don't feel shameful about breaking that law at all. Do you feel a sense of shame every time you go 36 in a 35 MPH zone? By and large, these are victimless crimes and I think trying to make people feel ashamed about personal choices that don't really affect other people isn't an effective deterrent. Now, if your choice to drink underage turns into you choosing to get behind the wheel and killing someone while drunk driving, then yes, I'd agree, a decent person would/should feel ashamed of themselves.

 

[MJS]

Yes, I read it. I think my stance on printing their names should be pretty clear from my response. I agree that there should be consequences for breaking the law but I also think the law is stupid to begin with. And as far as enforcing the law vs. following it, not only were many of these people probably underage drinkers, but the underage drinking laws have gotten tougher just in my own lifetime--I imagine they were even more lax in these lawmakers' teenage years.

Just like drug use, prostitution, and other so-called "vices," I think underage drinking becomes more dangerous the more illegal it becomes. Not to mention the fact that considering the fact that they're putting underage drinkers' names in the paper but not, as you said, underage shoplifters, it seems pretty clear that this is all part of a few lawmakers' weird moral agenda.

When you say the law is stupid, am I safe to assume you're talking about the drinking age, as it currently is?

As for the names in the paper....this isn't the first case of the police breaking up a party, so I'm not really sure what the issue is. There have been other parties, and both the parents and kids names were in the paper, so I can only chalk this up to the parents in this case, not wanting to tarnish their 'perfect' little community or image within it.

IIRC, there was a time when the police could not enter a home, but it seems that law has been changed. So instead of going out in the woods they moved the party inside, or underground, as you mentioned.

As far as things like this making the kids want to do it more....I say the same thing about parents who try to hide sex from their kids. No, IMO, instead of hiding it, educate their kids properly. Chances are, they're going to learn what they live. This isn't to say that it'll always work. My parents educated me about drinking and driving, yet I still went to parties, where alcohol was served. Difference is, if I had a drink, and the majority of times I didn't, I had enough common sense, to know what I was getting myself into, and to not put myself in an awkward position. In other words, my parents would rather have had me call them at 3am to pick me up, instead of getting in the car with 5 others who've already drank enough to float a small boat.

 

[CoryKS]

I drank underage even though it was against the law. I don't feel shameful about breaking that law at all. Do you feel a sense of shame every time you go 36 in a 35 MPH zone? By and large, these are victimless crimes and I think trying to make people feel ashamed about personal choices that don't really affect other people isn't an effective deterrent. Now, if your choice to drink underage turns into you choosing to get behind the wheel and killing someone while drunk driving, then yes, I'd agree, a decent person would/should feel ashamed of themselves.

Yeah man, underage drinking is a victimless crime. You just keep telling yourself that.

 

[MJS]

I drank underage even though it was against the law. I don't feel shameful about breaking that law at all. Do you feel a sense of shame every time you go 36 in a 35 MPH zone? By and large, these are victimless crimes and I think trying to make people feel ashamed about personal choices that don't really affect other people isn't an effective deterrent. Now, if your choice to drink underage turns into you choosing to get behind the wheel and killing someone while drunk driving, then yes, I'd agree, a decent person would/should feel ashamed of themselves.

As I said, there is no shame in having a drink, providing you can control yourself. I highly doubt in many of these house parties, there is any adult supervision, and if there is, the adults usually are of the mind, that at least they can control whats going on, ie: making sure nobody leaves drunk, take the keys as the kids arrive, etc.

People dont want their names in the paper for bad things, because they're afraid it'll tarnish their image. "Oh my goodness...what will the Smiths and Jones' think??" People get their names plastered in the paper all the time for various crimes. Like I said, it may/may not have an effect, but hey, its worth a shot IMO. If the kid gets kicked off the baseball team, the football team...oh well.

And no, I dont feel ashamed if I drive 35 in a 30 zone. I would though if I got caught and my name was listed in the paper. Now I might have to deal with the endless questions from those that I know that may've seen it. Will I hide in shame? Probably not, as it was a minor MV violation and frankly stupid to get pulled over for anyway. I'd rather see the cop pull the guy who's blasting thru 10-15 mph over, but this isnt about speeding. Your name gets plastered because you picked up a hooker, you bought or sold drugs, you beat the **** out of your wife, you killed someone. In this case its minors, underage kids drinking. Until the law gets changed, and it probably won't, it'll be a crime. So, I say plaster the names.

 

[MJS]

I drank underage even though it was against the law. I don't feel shameful about breaking that law at all. Do you feel a sense of shame every time you go 36 in a 35 MPH zone? By and large, these are victimless crimes and I think trying to make people feel ashamed about personal choices that don't really affect other people isn't an effective deterrent. Now, if your choice to drink underage turns into you choosing to get behind the wheel and killing someone while drunk driving, then yes, I'd agree, a decent person would/should feel ashamed of themselves.

How do you figure its a victimless crime? That kid crashed into someone, that kid dies from an OD of alcohol, that kid wraps mommies car around a tree, tell me thats victimless. And then we hear about how the kid was soooo good in school, honor roll, all the usual crap. But its victimless? I'm confused. Of course, those 'personal' choices, as you call them, are only personal when nothing bad happens. The minute anyone else is involved or something bad happens, there are your victims.

Nothing wrong with having a drink. But if I gotta get so drunk I can't walk or talk straight, thats a problem...a serious one IMO.

 

[celtic_crippler]

2 words: Personal Responsibility.

What's that mean?

Anyway...

Because minors make mistakes...that's what minors do... make mistakes as they learn, their "criminal" records are usually kept on the DL. I don't think anyone would want something stupid they did as a kid to haunt them later as an adult.

However, if you're 18 you're no longer a minor. Now put aside the fact that I think it's absolutely idiotic to NOT allow them (18+) to drink... that's a separate issue altogether.. but I've got no problems at all with "shame" based punishment for crimes.

As a matter of fact, if I had it my way we'd bring back the stockades of old. Nobody cares about forking over money for speeding tickets and such... it's an inconvenience at best, but if you slapped their tails in a stockade for a day or two in the middle of town square they'd probably be more hesitant to repeat the offense.

I guess you could say I have a Heinlein view on such things and fully endorse public and shame-based punishments, but not for minors.

 

[Frostbite]

How do you figure its a victimless crime? That kid crashed into someone, that kid dies from an OD of alcohol, that kid wraps mommies car around a tree, tell me thats victimless. And then we hear about how the kid was soooo good in school, honor roll, all the usual crap. But its victimless? I'm confused. Of course, those 'personal' choices, as you call them, are only personal when nothing bad happens. The minute anyone else is involved or something bad happens, there are your victims.

Nothing wrong with having a drink. But if I gotta get so drunk I can't walk or talk straight, thats a problem...a serious one IMO.

I'm saying that the drinking in and of itself is victimless. I'm sorry but I don't buy the fact that the personal choices I make turn me into a victim. I slept with a 24 year old when I was 17. I don't feel like I was raped, even though our government would probably disagree. I also don't call people who kill themselves "suicide victims." If I give my kid a glass of wine at home, who's the victim here, even though a crime has technically been committed? Drug use is a victimless crime. Being a thieving, wife abusing drug user is not victimless. Underage drinking and driving under the influence are two separate crimes and are treated that way by the police, prosecutors, etc.

What I'm saying is through education and supervised drinking, you'd eliminate a lot of these problems. If my kid is already drinking at home, he doesn't need to drive anywhere. If I'm the one supplying the alcohol, I can limit their intake to safer amounts. It's when kids are forced to drive out to the middle of the woods and sneak alcohol from their parents' liquor cabinets that you have most of the problems associated with binge drinking.

As far as the actual publishing of kids names in the paper, given how much more prospective employers are delving into their applicants'/employees' lives, it could have far reaching consequences. I'd hate for something stupid I did as a kid (which, the majority of kids my age were doing as well) follow me around years later.

 

[MJS]

I'm saying that the drinking in and of itself is victimless. I'm sorry but I don't buy the fact that the personal choices I make turn me into a victim. I slept with a 24 year old when I was 17. I don't feel like I was raped, even though our government would probably disagree. I also don't call people who kill themselves "suicide victims." If I give my kid a glass of wine at home, who's the victim here, even though a crime has technically been committed? Drug use is a victimless crime. Being a thieving, wife abusing drug user is not victimless. Underage drinking and driving under the influence are two separate crimes and are treated that way by the police, prosecutors, etc.

What I'm saying is through education and supervised drinking, you'd eliminate a lot of these problems. If my kid is already drinking at home, he doesn't need to drive anywhere. If I'm the one supplying the alcohol, I can limit their intake to safer amounts. It's when kids are forced to drive out to the middle of the woods and sneak alcohol from their parents' liquor cabinets that you have most of the problems associated with binge drinking.

And as I said, I grew up in an Italian household, so sure, I had a bit of wine on a holiday. Differences are, a) that was it. Just because it was there, didnt give me the green light to have 10 glasses, and b) in a houseparty setting, the people holding that party are now giving the ok for the other kids in attendance to drink. Is that going to fly with every parent out there?

As far as the actual publishing of kids names in the paper, given how much more prospective employers are delving into their applicants'/employees' lives, it could have far reaching consequences. I'd hate for something stupid I did as a kid (which, the majority of kids my age were doing as well) follow me around years later.

Oh well...dont do the crime, if ya can't do the time or take responsibility for the consequences down the road. This is where its the parents job, to have a brain, and adivse their kids of the potential issues down the road.

 

[Archangel M]

"There is no shame in having a drink"

Sure, but if you are underage, know it's illegal, know its against your school football team rules, know that getting caught will result in trouble and you are foolish enough to get caught...wahhhh!!!

 

[MJS]

"There is no shame in having a drink"

Sure, but if you are underage, know it's illegal, know its against your school football team rules, know that getting caught will result in trouble and you are foolish enough to get caught...wahhhh!!!

I agree! I still say that alot of this not wanting names published or a big thing made of it, is because a) it'll embarrass people, b) it'll make others aware that there is a problem in the perfect little town, c) it'll ruin the chances of colleges picking kids who play sports, to play for the college.

 

[MA-Caver]

2 words: Personal Responsibility.

If I may add to that... Personal Responsibility For Your OWN Child!

If you won't do it then someone else will... woe be unto you then when it's the police and they're doing their jobs to serve and protect.

I agree! I still say that alot of this not wanting names published or a big thing made of it, is because a) it'll embarrass people, b) it'll make others aware that there is a problem in the perfect little town, c) it'll ruin the chances of colleges picking kids who play sports, to play for the college.

Which is why parents need to talk to their kids and keep a tighter rein on those with good prospects in their future. Especially those hoping to win a scholarship, athletic or otherwise.

 

[MJS]

If I may add to that... Personal Responsibility For Your OWN Child!

If you won't do it then someone else will... woe be unto you then when it's the police and they're doing their jobs to serve and protect.

Agreed. And then when that happens, people have the balls to turn around and complain about the cops. Hmm....well, if ya did it yourself....

Which is why parents need to talk to their kids and keep a tighter rein on those with good prospects in their future. Especially those hoping to win a scholarship, athletic or otherwise.

Exactly. Granted, we can't follow our kids around 24/7, but if things are constantly re-enforced....maybe, just maybe, they'll use some common sense and recognize when they're entering bad waters.

 

[MJS]

Much to my surprise, reading today paper, I came across the article that I had mentioned.
http://www.courant.com/community/canton/hc-canton-dismiss1030.artoct29,0,5846815.story

Now, to pick apart a few things:

Harold Burbank, acting as the parents' attorney, argued in part that the school board's policy permitting the searches not only harms students, but also interferes with the parents' right to control the upbringing of their children. The action was filed in late March.

Harms students? Ummm..how? What harms the students, are the ones that're brining the drugs into the school and onto the property. It interferes with the parents upbringing? Umm...how? Maybe if the parents parented a bit more and were more aware of what their kids were doing, this wouldn't be such an issue.

"If school officials failed to provide a school environment that is reasonably free from drugs and contraband," Prescott added, "other parents would undoubtedly argue that its failure to do so was negatively impacting their attempts to raise their children in a safe and appropriate manner."

Ahh..typical case of lets pass the buck and blame someone else for the mistakes. Yup, soooo typical. People dont have the stones to admit when they **** up, so they blame others. Well, maybe, as I said above, if the parents did their job, this wouldn't be an issue. The school is taking steps, but the parents are upset, as well as the students.

One 17-year-old, the senior class president at the time, was arrested on a misdemeanor possession charge after police searched her Jeep and found "a stem or seed of marijuana," according to court documents. She also received a 10-day school suspension

Good! Next time it happens, make it a month!