Within the Seaholm community there are those who believe the 48th District Court (Bloomfield Township) is too tough when it comes time to sentence those for underage drinking violations.
This notion stems from the tendency of 48th District Court judges to sentence Minor in Possession (MIP) offenders year-long probation periods that require meetings with probation officers, and weekly breath tests.
Critics, including lawyers who have brought a lawsuit against the 48 and 52-3 District Courts, say the punishments are too tough for first time offenders.
It’s not fair, they said.
We see their point, but have difficulty agreeing with them.
If one meets the requirements, the MIP is dropped in most cases and a minor can forget that he or she ever had a crime on their record.
Sure, a slip in the road to redemption has left some minors facing time in the Oakland County jail for contempt of court -- which in common terms mean you willingly and knowingly violated an order of the court.
It’s important to point out a key element – first time offenders are not punished with jail time as a result of their first mistake, the original MIP. The punishment critics are complaining about is the second mistake – the one made after the offender was sentenced.
Call us cynical, but isn’t this akin to blowing the proverbial “second chance”?
MIPs are, unfortunately, commonplace within the community, and they often end up punishing good kids for a one-time mistake made on a rowdy and rambunctious weekend. Make no mistake, the Highlander doesn’t condone underage drinking, but fully understands that sometimes punishments may not be perceived as fully warranted.
However, what can one expect a judge to do? For every Ivy Leaguebound MIP owner, there is a minor who is responsible for the death of another human being from an accident that happened when he or she was driving drunk and lost control of the wheel.
For those critical of a judge trying to send a message to underage drinkers, imagine the community uproar if a judge’s slap of the wrist allowed a first time offender to become an alcohol-fueled vehicular killer the second time?
A judge is fully within his or her legal bounds to utilize the contempt of court statue laid down by the state of Michigan’s legislature in 1961. When one violates probation, which is an order of the court, they shouldn’t necessarily think it’s unfair if a judge exercises his right to use the contempt of court statue to impose a more severe punishment. More severe punishments have included jail time in the past, but if one lacks the rationality to willingly abide by their probation maybe a couple of days in the county jail couldn’t hurt.
The Highlander takes a position of neutrality when it comes to sentencing for Minors in Possession, hoping that our community has the ability of understanding both the perspective of the judge and defendant before scrutinizing either party.
Still, our message to the judges of the 48 and 52-3 Districts is to remember justice is difficult if there is a perception that you’re unjust arbiters of the law (whether or not the perception is fair is irrelevant).
We urge those judges to only extend the statue of contempt of court if it’s absolutely necessary. Make clear to the community what you did to the Highlander in your hour long interview, where you expressed that when you sentence for a MIP your aims are to rehabilitate, and each case is evaluated with the character and past history of the individual in mind.
Hopefully then even the critics will understand that the courts’ goal is not to screw citizens over or become victims of lawsuits, but to serve the people.
