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

[MindDetective]

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?[/QUOTE]

You'll be happy to know that I don't think the government can engage in corrective punishment in all (perhaps most) cases. However, if we can develop effective courses that properly train responsible drinking, then I would recommend something like that being mandated by the court instead of a punitive punishment.

 

[GasBandit]

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.

That's a whole 'nuther thread right there. I agree with you that the drinking age being set at 21 is stupid. However, I think setting any arbitrary age for drinking is what has led to the problems with underage alcoholism that are so rampant in our country to begin with. If you look at nations in the world that do not limit drinking by an arbitrary age (for example, in Germany, if you are big enough to reach across the bar to pick up your drink, you're old enough to drink it), they don't have this horrendous problem with teenage and collegiate alcoholism that we do in the USA. The taboo factor is nonexistent for them, and if there's not a law to break, you aren't being a cool rebel by breaking it. The forbidden fruit factor gets a lot of kids into drinking, and drinking way more than anybody should, as a method to celebrate their rejection of authority and expression of their free will.

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.[/QUOTE]

Both your punishment, and mine, are seen by Dave as being excessive, which as I am sure you know from being a law-larva, is constitutionally prohibited. And yes, driving is important to some teenagers, but I think more teenagers would fear the pain and humiliation of the public, bare-skinned lashing than treasure their driver's license. That's not to belittle how many kids like the freedom that being able to drive entails... it's just humiliation and physical pain is that much more universal.

 

[MindDetective]

Gas just wants to spank the bare bottoms of young, socially active women. I'm surprised more people aren't on board with this proposal...

 

[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.

That's a whole 'nuther thread right there. I agree with you that the drinking age being set at 21 is stupid. However, I think setting any arbitrary age for drinking is what has led to the problems with underage alcoholism that are so rampant in our country to begin with. If you look at nations in the world that do not limit drinking by an arbitrary age (for example, in Germany, if you are big enough to reach across the bar to pick up your drink, you're old enough to drink it), they don't have this horrendous problem with teenage and collegiate alcoholism that we do in the USA. The taboo factor is nonexistent for them, and if there's not a law to break, you aren't being a cool rebel by breaking it. The forbidden fruit factor gets a lot of kids into drinking, and drinking way more than anybody should, as a method to celebrate their rejection of authority and expression of their free will.
[/QUOTE]

I wasn't really trying to get into the whole should the drinking age be lowered argument. I just think that if we are going to keep 21 the drinking age, we should decide if this a fair punishment for everyone.

 

[tegid]

They may be able to bear that physical punishment with more proud than humiliation, if it's for breaking a rule other kids think they should break.

Also here in Spain the legal drinking age was 16 some years ago and we didn't have such a big problem but it was a normal thing for 16 year old kids to get drunk when they went out partying. When I was 17 the drinking age was set and 18, and now less kids in the 16-18 range drink a lot but from 18 onwards we have the same problem as before (if we had a problem at all).

Still, your drinking age being 21 is awfully stupid.

 

[GasBandit]

Gas just wants to spank the bare bottoms of young, socially active women. I'm surprised more people aren't on board with this proposal...

I have to admit, I've more than once considered that I might be ideally suited for the position of professional lash-wielder.

 

[Chazwozel]

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.[/QUOTE]

Who the fuck ever slated that you need a license to physically get into a car and drive? When I was 17 I had my license suspended for like 3 months. That didn't stop me. Where there's a will there's a way. Taking away their driver's license for non driving related offenses will be as effective as fining their parents or making them do community service.

Want a real solution? Stop demonizing alcohol and lower the drinking age to 18!

 

[SpecialKO]

I know I'm late to the discussion, but I don't really have a problem with this law (insofar as Dave has mentioned how it works). Last I heard, cops just can't walk into your house without a warrant and take your kids' licenses away while you're eating dinner.

Presumably, they would need some kind of cause (like, say, a noise complaint about a party), and if that's the case, well, the cops can already arrest whatever drunk kids they like, give 'em community service, charge fines, whatever.

Unless this law is coming with provisions allowing cops to just walk into your property at any time for a random kiddy alcohol check, or to arrest teenagers at communion, I really don't see what the problem is.

 

[phil]

Personally I think we go about the drinking age all wrong. I mean, we assume that you can't handle consuming a single drop, and then magically at 21 you can just go balls to the wall?

I think drinking should be introduced gradually to people's lives, in a way that encourages responsibility. What if instead of everything at 21, what if a person could be served two beers at a bar or restaurant? Then at 18 they can get up to 3 while out, but also can purchase a 6 pack for consumption at home? Maybe each year introduce something new until 21 when you can buy whatever you want?

I think with something like that you might make drinking less of a taboo and more of something that can be enjoyed when done responsibly.

 

[SpecialKO]

Personally I think we go about the drinking age all wrong. I mean, we assume that you can't handle consuming a single drop, and then magically at 21 you can just go balls to the wall?

This, I definitely agree with.

 

[WolfOfOdin]

Hmm....

Shouldn't we look at the root cause of why the kids are drinking as opposed to merely treating the symptoms of it? I remember liquor being demonized viciously all throughout high school, for one. That kind of attitude merely makes it an object of rebellion.

But that's just an aside.

I have to ask, Dave, with this law is there an allowance for discretion by the judge or prosecuting attorney? I know in NJ the first time you're arrested for possession you're given the option of an unconditional probation, provided your record is clear and you haven't fucked up too bad before. If the kid wasn't driving, I can see mandating classes and imposing harsh restrictions on the license at first, with the grade of severity stepping up if say, classes weren't attended or the kid was caught again.

This law can serve a purpose, but it should be implemented with some situational awareness.

 

[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.[/QUOTE]

Who the fuck ever slated that you need a license to physically get into a car and drive? When I was 17 I had my license suspended for like 3 months. That didn't stop me. Where there's a will there's a way. Taking away their driver's license for non driving related offenses will be as effective as fining their parents or making them do community service.

Want a real solution? Stop demonizing alcohol and lower the drinking age to 18![/QUOTE]

Most kids are not going to compound one infraction with another. Just because you did doesn't make it the norm.

 

[Dave]

The problem is they take your license for a non-driving offense.

So what would you guys say if they decided that this would be an excellent deterrent for say possession of a controlled substance? You are walking down the street and a cop stops you for whatever reason and he finds you have 1/2 oz of weed. According to this they can take away your driver's license. How in the world does that make sense?

---------- Post added at 04:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:19 PM ----------

I have to ask, Dave, with this law is there an allowance for discretion by the judge or prosecuting attorney?

Unknown. I can't find anything having to do with the wording as it's making it's way through the unicameral right now. I don't even know the bill's title.

 

[makare]

I dont have a problem with it for drinking or drugs. If you choose to break the law, taking away the permit the government gives you to drive makes sense to me.

 

[Dave]

I dont have a problem with it for drinking or drugs. If you choose to break the law, taking away the permit the government gives you to drive makes sense to me.

Yet again the things you say make no logical sense to me.

 

[makare]

I dont have a problem with it for drinking or drugs. If you choose to break the law, taking away the permit the government gives you to drive makes sense to me.

Yet again the things you say make no logical sense to me.[/QUOTE]

We just disagree. That's ok. No need to be obnoxious about it.

 

[Chibibar]

Who the fuck ever slated that you need a license to physically get into a car and drive? When I was 17 I had my license suspended for like 3 months. That didn't stop me. Where there's a will there's a way. Taking away their driver's license for non driving related offenses will be as effective as fining their parents or making them do community service.

Want a real solution? Stop demonizing alcohol and lower the drinking age to 18!

Cause driving without a license is illegal if you are CAUGHT. Multiple offense = jail time.

 

[Dave]

I dont have a problem with it for drinking or drugs. If you choose to break the law, taking away the permit the government gives you to drive makes sense to me.

Yet again the things you say make no logical sense to me.[/QUOTE]

We just disagree. That's ok. No need to be obnoxious about it.[/QUOTE]

That wasn't obnoxious in the least. What I *WANTED* to put was obnoxious!

That was just me shaking me head verbally at how we both profess logic but neither EVER sees the side of the other even remotely.

 

[makare]

I dont have a problem with it for drinking or drugs. If you choose to break the law, taking away the permit the government gives you to drive makes sense to me.

Yet again the things you say make no logical sense to me.[/QUOTE]

We just disagree. That's ok. No need to be obnoxious about it.[/QUOTE]

That wasn't obnoxious in the least. What I *WANTED* to put was obnoxious!

That was just me shaking me head verbally at how we both profess logic but neither EVER sees the side of the other even remotely.[/QUOTE]

Perhaps, after all this time, I can read your mind... THROUGH the interwebs.

 

[phil]

I think the bill itself doesn't make much sense, but then again I don't know what exactly you can do to a minor as punishment. Can you fine them? Not the parents but them? Can you force them into community service?

 

[Frank]

I dont have a problem with it for drinking or drugs. If you choose to break the law, taking away the permit the government gives you to drive makes sense to me.

How? How could that possibly make sense to you?

 

[Chibibar]

most punishment fits the crime. most crime. Now some crime you have to find alternative punishment. Lying for example, my father use spanking. Bad grades = no entertainment and study more.

Now driving you need a license to drive. you CAN drive without one, but that is illegal if you get caught (usually by speeding, breaking traffic laws, your car has broken lights etc etc) Drinking WHILE driving and get caught, you can lose your license. This make sense. Since drinking and driving is illegal, you broke the law, you lose license (related)

Now drinking in your home, being under age, with parent consent and get caught (neighbor reports you whatever) you lose license doesn't make sense. What if you don't have a license? my wife is 29 years old and she doesn't have a driving license. The punishment doesn't fit the crime at all.

Now if you are drinking in your home, being under age with parent consent and get caught, you could go to jail at least that makes some sense (if it is illegal) or punishment via deterrent (community service or something like that makes much more sense since everyone can be punish on the same level. Not everyone have a license at age 16.

 

[makare]

When a kid acts up you start by taking away privileges. A license to drive is a privilege, makes sense to take it away. Makes more sense to me than jail time or community service.

 

[GasBandit]

When a kid acts up you start by beating it raw.

FTFY.

 

[makare]

When a kid acts up you start by beating it raw.

FTFY.[/QUOTE]

I... made that SOOO dirty in my head.

Anyway, please tell me you dont have little redhead kids.

 

[GasBandit]

When a kid acts up you start by beating it raw.

FTFY.[/QUOTE]

I... made that SOOO dirty in my head.

Anyway, please tell me you dont have little redhead kids.[/QUOTE]

Heh, not of which I am aware.

 

[Chazwozel]

**Move along, nothing to see here**

 

[Espy]

Lets watch the personal attacks folks.

 

[Chazwozel]

Lets watch the personal attacks folks.

Well I was just referencing back her own statements how she didn't drink/ drive at that age.

"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."

I just want to know how she knows so much about teenagers from an obviously single sided viewpoint.

edit

Alright, alright....I'm sorry.

 

[Hailey Knight]

Hmm... I'd already graduated college at 21.

Anyway, punish underage sex with lobotomies!

 

[Philosopher B.]

Caning is for pussies. I say we brass-knuckle that shit.

 

[Kitty Sinatra]

The problem is they take your license for a non-driving offense.

They also take your vote away for a non-voting offense. Indeed, since selling your vote is only a misdemeanor, you don't even lose your vote for a voting offense.

Punishments really don't make complete sense, Dave.

 

[makare]

Lets watch the personal attacks folks.

Well I was just referencing back her own statements how she didn't drink/ drive at that age.

"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."

I just want to know how she knows so much about teenagers from an obviously single sided viewpoint.

edit

Alright, alright....I'm sorry.[/QUOTE]

I am capable of knowing that not everyone thinks or acts like I do but I still understand them.

 

[Chazwozel]

Lets watch the personal attacks folks.

Well I was just referencing back her own statements how she didn't drink/ drive at that age.

"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."

I just want to know how she knows so much about teenagers from an obviously single sided viewpoint.

edit

Alright, alright....I'm sorry.[/QUOTE]

I am capable of knowing that not everyone thinks or acts like I do but I still understand them.[/QUOTE]

That's a pretty arrogant statement. So you think you know what's behind everyone's motive for doing what they do? For instance, the reason I drove on a suspended license as a kid. You're saying you know why I did it?

 

[makare]

No, Im pretty sure that at all points throughout this conversation I have been talking about my friends and people close to me who have different behavior but I still understand.

You just want me to guess why you did what you did so you can pull some kind of "oh yeah fuck you" thing. I'm not playing that, I have only been speaking from my own experience.