I saw this article this morning from yesterday's metro section out of the Boston Globe, initially cruising over it considering we've heard this unfortunate story time and time again. The article "Three Teens Charged with Alcohol Offenses," should rather be labeled, "Three teens declare their twenties in jail as pleading not guilty."
Washed up three months after the event, a few teens under questionable counsel are pleading 'not guilty' to a combination of drinking underage, providing alcohol to minors, driving while intoxicated, and negligent motor vehicle homicide. On the morning after their senior prom in May three teens hoped in a car post binging on the beach and while driving home killed an 87 year old woman and critically injured her 41 year old daughter early in the morning on the 16th.
When waking from a dazed state the driver, an 18 year old hotshot, responded "No way, really?" to his friend's realization that he hit two people.
What boggles my mind are the facts being disputed. Under no unreasonable doubt did the events occur to provide the courts with appropriate charges. The were all underage, they all drank illegally, they were furnished with liquor illegally, one drove while under the influence, and cap stoning the great decisions made that early morning - the driver indisputably hit and killed/critically injured two innocent bystanders. Why are they pleading 'not guilty' and effectively lengthening their sentence by allowing these charges to go through trial in front of a jury?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment