Although subject to change and by no means set in stone, Noah’s Law enfranchises ignorance as a suitable excuse for incubating teenage crime and destructive practices. Controversy of this nature illustrates the increased and unjust rationalization of crime in this country.

Responsibility for instilling and then upholding the rule of law in children ultimately rests with parents. To not only enable this misconduct through negligence, but by active compliance with illegal behavior, should be held in utmost contempt by the law, especially with regards to minors.

It would be both a generalization and a mistake to pretend that every family is the same, or that relationships between guardians and their children operate with constant stability. Where under-age drinking is concerned, the relationship forged between child and parent is a complicated one that is rarely black-and-white.

However, the primary argument used by parents to justify their knowing consent is that since they know their kids will be drinking regardless, they might as well allow it in relative safety under their supervision.

This line of thinking sounds practical and even reasonable in isolated cases, but as a general principle the logic fundamentally conflicts with the notions of justice and moral right that our very society is based upon.

Consenting to crime in fear of parental difficulties is not a valid course of action for parents. What this essentially does is implicitly encourage kids to pick and choose which laws to follow and which to ignore for personal pleasure or convenience.

Parents should serve as a moral and physical bulwark against irresponsibility and illegal behavior in their kids, not act as a passive partner or confidante in regards to underage drinking. To morally bend at the knee for your child’s ability to endanger their life the lives of others and break the law is unacceptable.

The other problem in question is about whether parents who are unaware of their kid’s drinking should be harshly punished for their children’s actions as their guardian.

Despite the complex and often unique circumstances surrounding individual cases of this nature, I believe that it is the ultimate responsibility of parents to keep track of their children, and a failure to do so should never serve as an excuse in the eyes of the law or society.

A common counter-argument is to say that enacting harsher penalties will not curb the amount of illegal alcohol consumption, but this vein of reasoning refuses to address the fundamental goal of law.

Law is largely ill-suited and was never meant to utterly quell the desire for harmful practices; people delude themselves if they think law equates to or can replace morality. Law serves to maintain our society; it is up to the parents and older generations to shape what that society will accommodate and condemn on a moral and practical level.

Ignorance is complicity when the goal of a parent is to always know what their children are up to. Anyone who chooses to be a parent implicitly chooses their children to be their primary responsibility above all else. To shirk away from this duty or to even fail in good faith cannot be excused, regardless of the regret or individual specifics.