Underage teen drinking? Take away their driver's license!

[Dave]

I can't find a link on this as I heard it on the radio news, but the Nebraska Unicameral is debating a law right now that would take away the driver's licenses of underage drinkers who were caught, regardless of the circumstances of their capture. So if they were at a party drinking and the cops came they would be ticketed and lose their license even though they weren't driving!!

I have a problem with this. First, I am not against underage kids drinking in controlled environments like a family gathering, etc. I believe it's the demonization of alcohol that makes kids want to binge drink when they finally get the chance. If my son wants to have a beer at home he's more than welcome. My daughter wants a glass of wine I have no issues with that. If they are at a party and have been drinking they can call me even if it's 4 in the morning and not get into trouble. If they drive, though, they are done.

I think this is feel good stupid legislation that solves nothing and punishes the wrong way. If they were driving, take it away. If not, I fail to see why this is the punishment.

 

[Chibibar]

I can't find a link on this as I heard it on the radio news, but the Nebraska Unicameral is debating a law right now that would take away the driver's licenses of underage drinkers who were caught, regardless of the circumstances of their capture. So if they were at a party drinking and the cops came they would be ticketed and lose their license even though they weren't driving!!

I have a problem with this. First, I am not against underage kids drinking in controlled environments like a family gathering, etc. I believe it's the demonization of alcohol that makes kids want to binge drink when they finally get the chance. If my son wants to have a beer at home he's more than welcome. My daughter wants a glass of wine I have no issues with that. If they are at a party and have been drinking they can call me even if it's 4 in the morning and not get into trouble. If they drive, though, they are done.

I think this is feel good stupid legislation that solves nothing and punishes the wrong way. If they were driving, take it away. If not, I fail to see why this is the punishment.

I have to agree. I think it is the "puritan" who want to do away with alcohol. The problem with this legislation I see is that people will drink irresponsibly at later life. I do like your situation (which I will do with my kids when I get mine). I have always been a designated driver for many parties (except a couple) so I want my kids to know that I'm ok with them drinking (in moderation and not make a big deal out of it) and pick them up.

I'm with you on if they are driving, take it away.

What if the cops "bust" our house cause we are having a family gathering and some of the underage drink, this law would cause them to lose license too. That is just silly.

 

[Shakey]

I have a feeling this would just cause the opposite effect they want. If someone has the potential to lose their license whether they drive or not, they may just say fuck it I'll drive anyway.

 

[Bowielee]

Reading the title, I was going to be all, "RABBLE, RABBLE, they deserve it." until I read the part where it was regardless of whether they were driving or not. That's pretty stupid.

 

[Frank]

I don't usually have to deal with a ton of underage drinking here (our drinking age in Alberta is 18) and even when I do, it's generally easier just to call parents than to bother with charges. I would never enforce a that law, I can say without a shadow of a doubt.

 

[makare]

We must have that same law here. I knew people in high school who did chose not to drink because they didn't want to lose their license. So it works as a deterrent somewhat.

 

[Dave]

We must have that same law here. I knew people in high school who did chose not to drink because they didn't want to lose their license. So it works as a deterrent somewhat.

What else is there to do in South Dakota?!?

 

[MindDetective]

I say we deleted their saved Playstation games and ringtones. That oughta parent the hell out of those irresponsible kids.

---------- Post added at 12:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:05 PM ----------

By the way, teaching your kids to drink alcohol properly at home may not be genuinely good advice: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100127095930.htm I'm not saying the law they are discussing is good, just that the conclusion that providing alcohol at home does not necessarily lead to proper behavior elsewhere. Social influences are extremely powerful things.

 

[makare]

We must have that same law here. I knew people in high school who did chose not to drink because they didn't want to lose their license. So it works as a deterrent somewhat.

What else is there to do in South Dakota?!?[/QUOTE]

What are you saying what else besides enforcing law or what else besides being drunken idiots?

I didn't drink in high school and I always had plenty to do.

 

[GasBandit]

We must have that same law here. I knew people in high school who did chose not to drink because they didn't want to lose their license. So it works as a deterrent somewhat.

Well, if the ends are justifying the means now, there's all kinds of great things we can start doing.

 

[makare]

The end result has always been the point of the means. Taking away a license does not warrant the whiny "oh if the ends justify the means then blah blah blah". Everything anyone does is meant to bring about a certain end, people are arrested and jailed to further the end that there will be punishment for crime and less criminals on the street. That is what the law does. In this case, if teenagers are not going to to take the law seriously the law punishes in a way they take seriously. It's hardly taking them out and caning them.

 

[Dave]

The end result has always been the point of the means. Taking away a license does not warrant the whiny "oh if the ends justify the means then blah blah blah". Everything anyone does is meant to bring about a certain end, people are arrested and jailed to further the end that there will be punishment for crime and less criminals on the street. That is what the law does. In this case, if teenagers are not going to to take the law seriously the law punishes in a way they take seriously. It's hardly taking them out and caning them.

But the punishment has nothing to do with the crime. It would be like taking away the children of a shoplifter because that would send a more powerful message than just a ticket or small amount of jail time. Add to this the fact that the higher insurance rates punish the parents and I think the whole idea is stupid.

 

[Kitty Sinatra]

How long are they taking away the licenses for?

 

[sixpackshaker]

How long are they taking away the licenses for?

Long enough to put a family in financial difficulties. Hey little Johnny you did exactly what the vast majority of all children have done at your age. Now you can no longer drive yourself to work or school. Hope you enjoy riding the yellow dog to school, and losing the job you have to help your folks make ends meet.

 

[makare]

What does locking someone up in prison have to do with the crime of taking someone's life? We are not eye for an eye here. Taking a license sends a message to the offender of the seriousness of the crime. What would an eye for an eye punishment be for drinking anyway?

 

[GasBandit]

The end result has always been the point of the means. Taking away a license does not warrant the whiny "oh if the ends justify the means then blah blah blah". Everything anyone does is meant to bring about a certain end, people are arrested and jailed to further the end that there will be punishment for crime and less criminals on the street. That is what the law does. In this case, if teenagers are not going to to take the law seriously the law punishes in a way they take seriously. It's hardly taking them out and caning them.

Actually, I think public caning might be a more appropriate penalty. And it'd get even better results. Pain and humiliation, and the desire to avoid them, can be exquisite motivation.

 

[sixpackshaker]

What does locking someone up in prison have to do with the crime of taking someone's life? We are not eye for an eye here. Taking a license sends a message to the offender of the seriousness of the crime. What would an eye for an eye punishment be for drinking anyway?

You lock the killer up to keep them away from the normal law abiding citizens of the land.

You send the message that what has been a right of passage is now going to be treated like a serious felony.

 

[Dave]

What does locking someone up in prison have to do with the crime of taking someone's life? We are not eye for an eye here. Taking a license sends a message to the offender of the seriousness of the crime. What would an eye for an eye punishment be for drinking anyway?

Taking away the license has NOTHING to do with the crime. None. At all. It's just a bullying technique. Your assertion that locking someone up in jail having nothing to do with murder is just dumb.

 

[makare]

It is not dumb at all. You are pointing out how they aren't related. How often are they related? Not very. What punishment would you suggest exactly? Community service what does that have to do with drinking?

The right of passage argument really pisses me off. If you have a problem with the law work to change the law don't celebrate a violation of the law just because many people do it. Also, my sister has lost her license due to her recent charges (not as a minor) but she is still able to make it to work just fine.

 

[Kitty Sinatra]

Taking away the license has NOTHING to do with the crime. None.

Does taking away a felon's right/privelege to vote have anything to do with their crime?

(not the best example, since apparently Washington's court overturned this just last month)

 

[makare]

Taking away the license has NOTHING to do with the crime. None.

Does taking away a felon's right/privelege to vote have anything to do with their crime?

(not the best example, since apparently Washington's court overturned this just last month)[/QUOTE]

Really? I hadnt heard about that. That's great.

 

[MindDetective]

The end result has always been the point of the means. Taking away a license does not warrant the whiny "oh if the ends justify the means then blah blah blah". Everything anyone does is meant to bring about a certain end, people are arrested and jailed to further the end that there will be punishment for crime and less criminals on the street. That is what the law does. In this case, if teenagers are not going to to take the law seriously the law punishes in a way they take seriously. It's hardly taking them out and caning them.

Actually, I think public caning might be a more appropriate penalty. And it'd get even better results. Pain and humiliation, and the desire to avoid them, can be exquisite motivation.[/QUOTE]

To not get caught. Not necessarily to not engage in the act.

 

[Kitty Sinatra]

Here's a link: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,582151,00.html

 

[tegid]

It is not dumb at all. You are pointing out how they aren't related. How often are they related? Not very. What punishment would you suggest exactly? Community service what does that have to do with drinking?

The right of passage argument really pisses me off. If you have a problem with the law work to change the law don't celebrate a violation of the law just because many people do it. Also, my sister has lost her license due to her recent charges (not as a minor) but she is still able to make it to work just fine.

That's nice but isn't really a valid point.

But you are right, if everyone does it then the law should be changed instead of saying 'hey, it doesn't matter, everyone does it'.

 

[sixpackshaker]

It is not dumb at all. You are pointing out how they aren't related. How often are they related? Not very. What punishment would you suggest exactly? Community service what does that have to do with drinking?

The right of passage argument really pisses me off. If you have a problem with the law work to change the law don't celebrate a violation of the law just because many people do it. Also, my sister has lost her license due to her recent charges (not as a minor) but she is still able to make it to work just fine.

It is hard to jump out and protest this act and call upon the crafters of this new municipal code, BECAUSE IS JUST READ ABOUT IT. MIP minor in possession is a misdemeanor with a ticket with a fine and community service (maybe.) DWI is a felony if it is a repeated offense.

 

[makare]

It's valid as an argument against the "oh no! he doesnt have a license his family will surely suffer!". There are many different ways to get to work, carpool whatever. also the court will often give a work release just for work travel.

 

[GasBandit]

The end result has always been the point of the means. Taking away a license does not warrant the whiny "oh if the ends justify the means then blah blah blah". Everything anyone does is meant to bring about a certain end, people are arrested and jailed to further the end that there will be punishment for crime and less criminals on the street. That is what the law does. In this case, if teenagers are not going to to take the law seriously the law punishes in a way they take seriously. It's hardly taking them out and caning them.

Actually, I think public caning might be a more appropriate penalty. And it'd get even better results. Pain and humiliation, and the desire to avoid them, can be exquisite motivation.[/QUOTE]

To not get caught. Not necessarily to not engage in the act.[/QUOTE]

Isn't that true of pretty much any punishment?

 

[MindDetective]

The end result has always been the point of the means. Taking away a license does not warrant the whiny "oh if the ends justify the means then blah blah blah". Everything anyone does is meant to bring about a certain end, people are arrested and jailed to further the end that there will be punishment for crime and less criminals on the street. That is what the law does. In this case, if teenagers are not going to to take the law seriously the law punishes in a way they take seriously. It's hardly taking them out and caning them.

Actually, I think public caning might be a more appropriate penalty. And it'd get even better results. Pain and humiliation, and the desire to avoid them, can be exquisite motivation.[/QUOTE]

To not get caught. Not necessarily to not engage in the act.[/QUOTE]

Isn't that true of pretty much any punishment?[/QUOTE]

Almost every punishment, yes. Some punishments may genuinely change the behavior by producing the desired behavior as a result. Then you have a combination of punishment and correction.

 

[GasBandit]

The end result has always been the point of the means. Taking away a license does not warrant the whiny "oh if the ends justify the means then blah blah blah". Everything anyone does is meant to bring about a certain end, people are arrested and jailed to further the end that there will be punishment for crime and less criminals on the street. That is what the law does. In this case, if teenagers are not going to to take the law seriously the law punishes in a way they take seriously. It's hardly taking them out and caning them.

Actually, I think public caning might be a more appropriate penalty. And it'd get even better results. Pain and humiliation, and the desire to avoid them, can be exquisite motivation.[/QUOTE]

To not get caught. Not necessarily to not engage in the act.[/QUOTE]

Isn't that true of pretty much any punishment?[/QUOTE]

Almost every punishment, yes. Some punishments may genuinely change the behavior by producing the desired behavior as a result. Then you have a combination of punishment and correction.[/QUOTE]

I'm not sure there are any punishments that, given all other factors being equal, have more tendency to just encourage "not getting caught" any more or less than any other, as opposed to genuine behavioral correction. For instance, makare's high school friends who she says "didn't drink because they didn't want to lose their license" probably wouldn't have said "oh, they're changing it to public flogging? Well, then we can do it, just make sure we don't get caught." The "motivation not to get caught" part would normally only come into play where the ability to enforce the law (or catch the criminal) was in question, which is also independent of the nature of the punishment.

 

[makare]

Im not sure what you are arguing exactly but for example, had the punishment been community service instead of loss of license I am certain they would have thrown caution to the wind and drank. The loss of their license, that symbol of freedom and independence, had specific importance to them. I don't think they would have wanted to be beaten, obviously but not all punishments would get the same results.

 

[MindDetective]

The end result has always been the point of the means. Taking away a license does not warrant the whiny "oh if the ends justify the means then blah blah blah". Everything anyone does is meant to bring about a certain end, people are arrested and jailed to further the end that there will be punishment for crime and less criminals on the street. That is what the law does. In this case, if teenagers are not going to to take the law seriously the law punishes in a way they take seriously. It's hardly taking them out and caning them.

Actually, I think public caning might be a more appropriate penalty. And it'd get even better results. Pain and humiliation, and the desire to avoid them, can be exquisite motivation.[/QUOTE]

To not get caught. Not necessarily to not engage in the act.[/QUOTE]

Isn't that true of pretty much any punishment?[/QUOTE]

Almost every punishment, yes. Some punishments may genuinely change the behavior by producing the desired behavior as a result. Then you have a combination of punishment and correction.[/QUOTE]

I'm not sure there are any punishments that, given all other factors being equal, have more tendency to just encourage "not getting caught" any more or less than any other, as opposed to genuine behavioral correction. For instance, makare's high school friends who she says "didn't drink because they didn't want to lose their license" probably wouldn't have said "oh, they're changing it to public flogging? Well, then we can do it, just make sure we don't get caught." The "motivation not to get caught" part would normally only come into play where the ability to enforce the law (or catch the criminal) was in question, which is also independent of the nature of the punishment.[/QUOTE]

Example: Girl comes home and drops coat on the floor. You can punish the girl with a scolding, reducing allowance, whatever. But maybe she just drops it on the floor in her room instead of by the door and avoids getting caught as much. Have the girl put the coat on, go back outside, come back in, remove the coat, and hang it up. This may be punishing (imagine the eye-rolling) but it is also corrective in the sense that it instills the proper behavior for the next time.

 

[sixpackshaker]

I don't know if it is current now or not, but some states take a kid's license away for truancy, or dropping out of school. That still is a load of crap.

 

[GasBandit]

Example: Girl comes home and drops coat on the floor. You can punish the girl with a scolding, reducing allowance, whatever. But maybe she just drops it on the floor in her room instead of by the door and avoids getting caught as much. Have the girl put the coat on, go back outside, come back in, remove the coat, and hang it up. This may be punishing (imagine the eye-rolling) but it is also corrective in the sense that it instills the proper behavior for the next time.

Well, by that rationale then, the most corrective punishment would be to force the kid to not drink alcohol? There are situations where corrective punishment of that nature is unfeasable, and this is one of them. Your example works because it is teaching them to do X instead of Y, but when the lesson is simply "don't do Y" and X is an infinite set of everything EXCEPT Y, it naturally follows that the punishment must be punitive.

Im not sure what you are arguing exactly but for example, had the punishment been community service instead of loss of license I am certain they would have thrown caution to the wind and drank. The loss of their license, that symbol of freedom and independence, had specific importance to them. I don't think they would have wanted to be beaten, obviously but not all punishments would get the same results.

Well, that's because you're talking about punishments of unequal severity. Mind Detective is saying that a punishment of extreme severity (public caning) would not be a deterrent to the activity, merely instead making the offender find better ways of not getting caught doing it. I disagree, and I don't think there's an effective way to invoke a corrective punishment here. I mean, what are we going to do, assign an individual police officer to take the kid to a party and force him to NOT drink all weekend?

 

[Shakey]

What seems worse to me is the drinking age is 21. Which means that someone who is out of high school, has a family, works a full time job, can vote, can go to war, can smoke, can be tried in a court of law as an adult, can still have their license away for drinking a beer. To me, that sounds like an excessive punishment. If the drinking age were 18, I could possibly see this as being OK. Until they decide to treat all adults as adults, this is a stupid idea.

 

[makare]

Im not sure what you are arguing exactly but for example, had the punishment been community service instead of loss of license I am certain they would have thrown caution to the wind and drank. The loss of their license, that symbol of freedom and independence, had specific importance to them. I don't think they would have wanted to be beaten, obviously but not all punishments would get the same results.

Well, that's because you're talking about punishments of unequal severity. Mind Detective is saying that a punishment of extreme severity (public caning) would not be a deterrent to the activity, merely instead making the offender find better ways of not getting caught doing it. I disagree, and I don't think there's an effective way to invoke a corrective punishment here. I mean, what are we going to do, assign an individual police officer to take the kid to a party and force him to NOT drink all weekend?

That was pretty much my point above about the corrective. There is no punishment that matches that particular crime so they will always be offset.
But I honestly believe that a teenager would be more likely to drink if caning was the possible crime than losing his license. Driving is really important to teenagers, well most of them. I didn't get my license until I was 18 and even then I didn't really care.