Murder 4, 10 Years Probation Thanks To "Affluenza"

[Shiranu]

[youtube:3v1ppot1]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYORruzVefQ[/youtube:3v1ppot1]

"The case of a rich Texas teenager who received probation but no jail time after killing four people in a drunk driving car crash in June has sparked a new debate about money, power, and punishment after the teen's defense team argued he was the victim of "affluenza," or the failure of his wealthy parents to set boundaries.

Judge Jean Boyd accepted Ethan Couch's guilty pleas for killing four people and injuring nine, but the punishment -- most likely a lengthy stay at a $1,200-a-day California drug treatment facility -- brought widespread outrage because it seemed to suggest that the judge bought the defense theory "that because he has gotten off without serious punishment in the past, he cannot be seriously punished in this case either," as Jaquielynn Floyd of the Dallas Morning News writes Thursday.

Judge Boyd made no further comments on her ruling, and has said she won't comment on the case because of ethical restraints. She had previously said she will not run for reelection to her seat."* The Young Turks hosts Cenk Uygur and Ana Kasparian break it down.

Basically; rich kid has never had consequences, therefor he murders 4 people drunk driving at 16 so he should not have to face the consequences.

[mykcob4]

Writer posted a YouTube video

"The case of a rich Texas teenager who received probation but no jail time after killing four people in a drunk driving car crash in June has sparked a new debate about money, power, and punishment after the teen's defense team argued he was the victim of "affluenza," or the failure of his wealthy parents to set boundaries.

Judge Jean Boyd accepted Ethan Couch's guilty pleas for killing four people and injuring nine, but the punishment -- most likely a lengthy stay at a $1,200-a-day California drug treatment facility -- brought widespread outrage because it seemed to suggest that the judge bought the defense theory "that because he has gotten off without serious punishment in the past, he cannot be seriously punished in this case either," as Jaquielynn Floyd of the Dallas Morning News writes Thursday.

Judge Boyd made no further comments on her ruling, and has said she won't comment on the case because of ethical restraints. She had previously said she will not run for reelection to her seat."* The Young Turks hosts Cenk Uygur and Ana Kasparian break it down.

Basically; rich kid has never had consequences, therefor he murders 4 people drunk driving at 16 so he should not have to face the consequences.

Kinda reminds me of Luara Bush when she ran over a Mexican kid and got off scot free.

[GSOgymrat]

Basically; rich kid has never had consequences, therefor he murders 4 people drunk driving at 16 so he should not have to face the consequences.

The question I find more interesting is whether this sentence is consistent with similar cases of teenagers who have killed people while driving intoxicated. Unfortunately reasoned analysis isn't as provocative as using click bait terms such as "affluenza", which is not a recognized mental health condition, and isn't as emotionally satisfying as "permissive parenting results in spoiled rich brat murdering four people with impunity." I suspect many people don't question whether the sentence is reasonable because they are so distracted by having their feelings validated that rich people get away with murder and permissive parents create spoiled monsters. Maybe those things are true but whether this case provides evidence for that is questionable.

What is the best consequence for an adolescent whose reckless actions and impaired judgment result in lethality? Is this sentence unreasonable or unprecedented? According to the New York Times:

Criminal defense lawyers said it was not uncommon for minors involved in serious drunken-driving cases and other crimes to receive probation instead of prison time, even in a tough-on-crime region such as North Texas. Other experts said it was part of a growing trend of giving a young person a second chance through rehabilitation instead of trying him as an adult.

Liz Ryan, the president and chief executive of the Campaign for Youth Justice, a group in Washington that advocates for juvenile rehabilitation, said that in a series of recent cases before the Supreme Court and state courts, advances in neuroscience have been applied to questions of crime and punishment for young people.

"They make mistakes, they're prone to impulsive behavior," Ms. Ryan said. "And at the same time, they are capable of change."

Determining the best sentence for crimes involving adolescents and children is more complex than for adults and we need to decide as a society whether we are going to rehabilitate offenders or merely punish them. Of course the other issue here is how much the wealth or poverty of an offender affects conviction and sentencing. I suspect money has everything to do with it but rather than throwing around ridiculous psychobabble I would prefer to read an analysis of the wealth, sex and race of defendents compared with conviction rates and sentences. This particular case may very well be outrageous but I can't determine that based on the story as it is being presented.

[zarus tathra]

she won't comment on the case because of ethical restraints

ethical constraints meaning constraints on bribes

Determining the best sentence for crimes involving adolescents and children is more complex than for adults and we need to decide as a society whether we are going to rehabilitate offenders or merely punish them. Of course the other issue here is how much the wealth or poverty of an offender affects conviction and sentencing. I suspect money has everything to do with it but rather than throwing around ridiculous psychobabble I would prefer to read an analysis of the wealth, sex and race of defendents compared with conviction rates and sentences. This particular case may very well be outrageous but I can't determine that based on the story as it is being presented.

The more excuses you make for people, the more people are going to use those excuses where they do not apply. The illegitimate uses will far outnumber the legitimate ones.

[Sal1981]

First impulses are usually wrong ones.

[sab]

I am trying to find out where 'Murder' fits in. All I can see is People dying as a result of reckless/Alcohol induced driving.

[Solitary]

To say it was murder is poisoning the well. The problem with the legal system is the difference that race or affluence makes in sending someone to prison or not. I think affluence and stereotypes make a bigger difference than race in itself---look at the OJ case. Solitary