Au pair accepted responsibility of position

There is one facet of James Mahon's column in the Nov. 6 edition of The Chronicle about the Louise Woodward trial that particularly disturbs me. He seems to advance the notion that Woodward is somehow less at fault, or that the Eappens are somehow more to blame, simply because she is 19. He seems to think that because she is technically a "teenager," she is automatically less responsible for her actions-and that any late-night partying is nothing more than her "right" as a young person.

These suppositions, however, ignore the fact that many 19-year-olds are indeed responsible adults. Although her inexperience may be cause for second thoughts about her employment, her age should not raise any questions. Nineteen-year-olds in this country can drive, vote, hold a full-time job, marry, have children and basically live their lives as adults.

The concept that a person of this age is anything less than adult is supported only by our nation's drinking age and the collegiate experience. Perhaps Mahon has forgotten that while many 19-year-olds are partying their way through college, millions of their peers around the globe are living in the "real world" and are expected to act accordingly.

My wife was 20 and I was 21 when our first child was born, but we never felt that our ages exempted us from any parental responsibilities. We adjusted our behavior and learned what we needed know to be good parents. If Woodward did not want to act as a responsible adult, she should never have applied to care for these children. By taking on that duty, she was morally obliged to act with equivalent responsibility. If she saw the position simply as an easy way to live in America, her attitude is reprehensible.

I did not follow the trial closely enough to comment on Woodward's guilt or innocence. However, I do know that her age should have no bearing on the verdict in the case or anyone's opinion thereof.

Kevin Mahler

Trinity '92