A resolution against a bill currently stalled in the Michigan Legislature that would allow judges to send repeat underage drinkers to prison was proposed yesterday by the Michigan Student Assembly.

The current code now allows judges to punish first, second and third-time minor in possession violators with increasing fines, temporary suspensions of driver"s licenses and court-mandated alcohol treatment, screening or community service. The bill would amend the Liquor Control Code to add the possibility of jail sentences of up to 90 days for second and third-time offenders, and for first-time offenders only if they fail to participate in court-mandated treatment, screening or community service.

LSA senior Jon Russell, who has been ticketed for an MIP violation, said the bill doesn"t make sense.

"They"re wasting jail space. The penalty is way too steep," Russell said. "Jail time is ridiculous."

But proponents of the bill say judges do not currently have the tools to enforce their sentences.

House Bill 4200, which passed the Michigan House in May, is now under consideration by the Senate Judiciary Committee, where it has languished since May. Two senators on the committee, which has already rejected the bill in its current form, say the bill will have to be amended before it is passed.

MSA Rep. Rob Goodspeed, one of the sponsors of an assembly resolution in opposition of the bill, said the bill creates penalties that are too harsh.

"Although underage drinking is a problem, incarcerating students is not the answer and it disrupts their lives in a way that is uncalled for," he said.

"Hopefully our lobbying effects and the concern that the Democrats have expressed will be enough to effectively kill it," Goodspeed said.

But the Rev. Allen Rice, executive director of the Michigan Interfaith Council on Alcohol Problems, who testified to the committee in support of the bill, said the legislation is necessary to enforce underage drinking laws.

"The judges have said they don"t have the ability to require fines to be paid so they wanted additional leverage," he said.

State Rep. Mike Kowall (R-White Lake Twp.), the bill"s sponsor, downplayed the possibility of jail time for violators.

"I"m talking about 15- to 16-year-olds and when there"s a chronic problem," Kowall said. "It is not aimed at first offenders. It is aimed at chronic offenders."

Sen. Gary Peters, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, who voted against the bill in its first reading, said he is keeping an open mind about the bill but that he believes jail time is too harsh of a penalty.

"We need to have punishment that is commensurate with the offense," said Peters, of Bloomfield Township.

Sen. Bill Bullard (R-Highland) concurred with Peters. "I think the court has other ways of seeking compliance with court orders other than jail time," he said.

Another criticism aimed at the bill is the fact that district judges already have the ability to place those who do not pay fines, attend treatment or participate in community service under contempt and that there is no need for a bill offering penalties such as jail time.

Sen. William Van Regenmorter (R-Georgetown Twp.), the chairman of the committee, said jail time issued for contempt of court for an MIP violation might be constitutionally challengeable and thus the legislation is necessary.

"Jailing someone for contempt of court when the underlying offense doesn"t carry jail time is illogical," said Van Regenmorter, who plans to bring the bill up for another vote in committee but expects it to be amended substantially.