a public defender

If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!

This Courant story that I highlighted in the Jumpstart earlier today has stuck with me all day. It is a perfect example of what Windypundit and Simple Justice and I were talking about: “Free punishments”.

Consider the example in the article:

West Hartford resident Ethan Frankel thought his underage son was at a friend’s house when the 17-year-old attended a party in April where alcohol was present. His son had already left the party and was in his car with two other friends when the police arrived, said Frankel.

“He stayed there and talked to them and cooperated with the police. A lot of the kids ran away from the party, jumped out windows,” said Frankel. He said his son did not possess or drink alcohol that night, but still received a citation. “A West Hartford policeman told us to just sign the ticket and send in the money and that will be it.”

After his son paid the fine, Frankel said, a notice from the DMV arrived stating the teen’s license would be suspended. The Frankels have since hired a lawyer to look into the matter.

“It just didn’t seem fair. It’s like a trick, we felt tricked because we didn’t know that this would happen,” said Frankel, who fears his auto insurance fees will increase. “I know what they are trying to do and obviously they are looking out for people’s safety, but it needed to be thought out more.”

Lots more after the jump. Keep reading.

What is the correlation between the underage kid drinking and his license being suspended? Technically, the underage kid could have been at home and yet his license could have been suspended. It makes no sense to me. This is really draconian punishment.

“[The] statute requires 150 days’ suspension,” said Bill Seymour, a DMV spokesman. “It is for a person under the age of 21 in possession of alcohol, whether you are in a car or not, whether it was you who drove or not. If you are given a citation it no longer requires a booking from the police department as they once did. If you sign the infraction `guilty’ and send it in, you are automatically going to receive a suspension for 150 days.”

I understand if the kid was driving, then yes, obviously, treat it like any other DUI. What purpose does this law serve, though?

Consider this example: A family decides to host a party for their kid. They will serve alcohol (because they’re realistic and they know kids will drink and they figure it’s better that they drink in their house where they can keep an eye on them), but prior to doing so, set down some ground rules.

1. The parents on each kid who is attending must be aware of the party and have to call the host’s home and confirm their kid’s attendance.
2. They have to drive the kid to the party.
3. They have to pick up the kid from the party.
4. The hosts stay up all night, making sure that no kid sneaks off.

They can still be convicted and someone will lose a license. Does that make sense?

[Rep.] Lawlor said he thinks it is a good that the house party law is being used by police to curb underage drinking. Although losing one’s license is a nuisance, he said, it reinforces the message that it is illegal for minors to possess or consume alcohol in Connecticut.

“Using the excuse that you are trying to keep kids safe by having a party at your house and allowing them to drink isn’t acceptable because it is against the law,” Lawlor said. “I think organizing a drinking party is one of those ways that is a deterrent to keeping kids from acting responsibly. If you were inviting over 50 high school kids in the aftermath of the graduation, you are going to have to take some special precautions to make sure that those kids aren’t going to drink.”

I understand, but again we’re using an extreme situation to legislate. There has to be a better way.

Post title with sincere apologies to Pink Floyd