Charlotte, NC (TLS). John and Mary Clark never dreamed that when they gave their son a graduation party last year that they would be hauled into custody to face charges of contributing to the delinquency of a minor.
Yet last Wednesday the Clarks found themselves sitting in the office of Circuit Solicitor Jerry Peace being charged with passing alcohol to minors.
The Clarks are both educators in Newberry County, South Carolina schools. John Clark is an assistant principal at a high school. Mary Clark is a middle school teacher. Their son was graduating, and the Clarks wanted to do something special for him by throwing a keg party at their Lake Greenwood home. Not only were their son's friends--all students--at the party, but they enjoyed the flow of the suds from the keg of beer the Clarks had brought to the residence.
Allegations were made that the Clarks charged the students 5 bucks a piece for drinking out of the keg. However, that allegation is in dispute. Sources close to the investigation state that the 5 bucks was for a special cup that the students could purchase, out of which they could drink the beer.
Prosecutor Jerry Peace was alerted to these 'hardened criminals' when a student who attended the party told parents about the keg. Those parents alerted Peace's office.
Being one who never turns down an offer to go after 'teachers gone bad,' Peace apparently alerted the Clarks to the pending charges, and the Clarks 'turned themselves in' and were released on a $5000 personal recognizance bond.
Both in their early 50s, the Clarks are long-time educators and have never had a stain on their record. Major questions persist as to whether or not what took place at their Lake Greenwood home constitutes such a stain.
The Clarks maintain that their deal with the students was that no one who drank the beer could drive home. Thus, the Clarks chaperoned an overnight stay at their home for their guests. This kept students off of the road after having imbibed.
This doesn't seem to be irresponsible or reprehensible behavior at all on the part of the Clarks.
The other curious caveat to this story has to do with the ages of the students. This was a graduation party. It can be safely assumed that most if not all of the students were at least 18 years of age. Back in the Clark's teen years, 18-year-old adults could drink legally. Today in South Carolina, however, the legal drinking age is 21.
Yet Prosecutor Jerry Peace says he has no idea about the ages of the participants. He simply knows 'there were a lot of kids there.'
18-year-olds are old enough to join the army and get sent to war. They can vote, and they are also considered adults. Yet in S.C., when it comes to alcohol, they are 'kids.'
I'm sure that makes perfect sense to somebody, somewhere.
That debate, however, is for another column. The issue here is the Clark's reputation. They had a private party for their son on their private property. At one time what happened on private property was considered private for all matters except the most obvious things such as murder, theft, rape, etc.
We are not talking murder or rape here, however. The Clarks allowed 18 year olds to drink beer (psst--I got news for you..these 'kids' are already doing it with NO adult supervision!). They exercised responsible behavior by mandating that those teenagers who drank beer had to stay overnight.
So why are these two responsible educators sitting in Jerry Peace's office being charged with a crime like common criminals?
It looks like Jerry is simply continuing his target-practice against school teachers.
Sunday, March 18, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Whose bright idea was it to raise the drinking age from 18 to 21? This is mainly due to the backing of MADD and the current senior senator from NC, Elizabeth Dole
When she was Secretary of Transportation under Reagan, she came up with a way to do it. Deny Federal transportation funding to any state that refused to raise the drinking age to 21. This arm twisting was quite effective as 49 states quickly complied. Louisiana held out for a while when the state courts called the measure unconsititutional, but a state constitutional amendment was eventually passed to raise the drinking age.
As for MADD, while the organization was orginally founded to reduce the number of drunk driving fatalities, it has since become a neo-prohibitionist organization, that wants to stop ALL drinking (we all remember how well that worked, don't we?) It has deviated from its original purpose so much that the founder of MADD, Candy Lightner, has left the orginization for this very reason.
Post a Comment