Tuesday, August 26, 2008

This Is Why We Need A Lower Drinking Age

I don't think I've ever seen WKTV post an update to one of their online stories before today. Oddly enough, the story they chose to exercise this new editorial discretion with was on Andrew Donovan's DWI arrest:

**UPDATE (August 2008): Donovan appeared in New Hartford Town Court, where he pleaded down to a Driving While Ability Impaired charge, according to a court clerk. He paid a $500 fine and $80 surcharge, and all other charges were dropped, which were "to the satisfaction of the court" according to the court clerk.

So an underage drunk goes careening through the streets of Utica, narrowly avoids injuring a guy when he crashes into his car and rips the door off, and then drives off to New Hartford before he gets arrested. And the penalty? A check for $580.

If that's all we're going to do to punish DWI there's no reason not to drop the drinking age.

Update: A kind emailer suggests that we have Google to thank for the revision. The Andrew Donovan involved in the drunken hit and run incident unfortunately shares a name with the totally innocent guy that happens to work at WKTV, so anyone Googling for either of them will probably come across the story. Understandably, the Andrew Donovan that isn't an underage drunk doesn't want to be confused with the one that is.

Update: Another kind emailer has the temerity to suggest that young Andrew received preferential treatment because of Donna Donovan's position as publisher of the Observer-Dispatch. I'm shocked, simply shocked, at the mere suggestion of such an idea.