• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

A Wealthy Teen's Defense For a Deadly Drunken-Driving Crash: "Affluenza"

dust1n

Zindīq
By Josh Voorhees

Here's an Internet outrage-inducing story that has been bubbling up for the past few days and appears to have finally hit critical mass: A Texas judge on Tuesday sentenced a wealthy 16-year-old boy to 10 years of probation for a horrific drunken driving crash that killed four people and seriously injured two others this summer. But it's not the relatively lenient sentence that has people up in arms—it's the apparent reasoning behind it. Here's the ABC affiliate in Dallas with the details of the teen's defense:
Prior to sentencing, a psychologist called by the defense, Dr. G. Dick Miller, testified that [Ethan] Couch's life could be salvaged with one to two years' treatment and no contact with his parents. ... Miller said Couch's parents gave him "freedoms no young person should have." He called Couch a product of "affluenza," where his family felt that wealth bought privilege and there was no rational link between behavior and consequences.​
He said Couch got whatever he wanted. As an example, Miller said Couch's parents gave no punishment after police ticketed the then-15-year-old when he was found in a parked pickup with a passed out, undressed, 14-year-old girl. Miller also pointed out that Couch was allowed to drive at age 13. He said the teen was emotionally flat and needed years of therapy.​
According to police, Couch was going 70 miles-per-hour in his father's Ford F-350 pickup in a 40 mph zone when he lost control and started a deadly chain of collisions that claimed the lives of: 24-year-old Breanna Mitchell, whose car had broken down on the side of the road; Hollie Boyles and her 21-year-old daughter Shelby, who lived nearby and had come outside to help Mitchell; and Brian Jennings, a youth pastor who was also playing the role of good samaritan. Two of the seven passengers riding in Couch's truck were also seriously injured.

Earlier in the night, police say that several of the passengers were caught on camera stealing two cases of beer from a local Walmart. At the time of the crash, Couch had a blood alcohol content of 0.24, three times the legal limit for an adult, and also had traces of Valium in his system, according to police. He pleaded guilty last week to four counts of intoxication manslaughter and two counts of intoxication assault causing serious bodily injury.

Now's a good time to take a quick step back and remember that the destined-to-be-mocked-by-a-hashtag "affluenza" excuse wasn't actually mentioned by the Judge Jean Boyd when she handed out her sentence. Indeed, Boyd has yet to publicly explain her rationale for handing out 10 years of probation instead of the 20-year prison sentence that prosecutors and the victims' families had asked for. Still, it certainly appears as though the judge bought at least some of what the defense was selling, which in addition to the idea that the family's wealth left the teen apparently unable to understand right from wrong also focused on his parents' strained relationship. ("This kid has been in a system that’s sick," Miller said. "If he goes to jail, that’s just another sick system.")

Given the "affluenza" defense—along with the fact that the teen's parents will be the ones paying for his stay at a $450,000-a-year, in-patient rehab facility near Newport Beach, Calif.—one doesn't have to squint to see what looks an awful lot like a double-standard predicated on the teen's family wealth. "Money always seems to keep [the kid] out of trouble," said Eric Boyles, whose wife and daughter were killed in the crash. "Ultimately today, I felt that money did prevail. If [he] had been any other youth, I feel like the circumstances would have been different." Or, as Dallas Morning News editorial writer Mike Hashimoto put it Wednesday: "Despite all the death in his wake, Couch didn’t learn a thing he didn’t already know: It’s far better to come from that wealthy place where actions seldom have those nasty old consequences. That’s for other folks."

Ethan Couch-Affluenza: Texas teen spared prison time in deadly drunk driving crash after offering wealth-based defense.

Surprised this hasn't shown up yet.
 

Reverend Rick

Frubal Whore
Premium Member
He is a kid, who wants him in prison? We as society need to figure out when a child becomes an adult. Could he vote, get married, buy a gun, beer, liquor? But we can charge him as an adult?

16 is too young to be driving. These are adult things. He is not an adult, so we try to fix him not warehouse him for life.

The flip side is we should give him the needle for what he done if he is an adult.
 

Slapstick

Active Member
I seen this and notice a lot of the outrage on the news. I didn’t know what his sentence was until you posted this so thanks. I think 10 years of probation is a long time for anyone. It will probably include doing community service and taking drug tests every two weeks and may have very strict probation officer. Like have a curfew and have to check in with his PO or his PO randomly check in with him to find out what he is up to and doing to make sure he isn’t drinking under age or doing anything to break his probation. If he breaks his probation then he will very likely wind up in jail.

With all of that being said, I do think people who are rich or famous get away with a lot of stuff that your average person wouldn’t normally be able too. It happens all the time. It isn’t just with this one case. I constantly hear of Hollywood actors getting busted with narcotics and all they get is a slap on the wrist. So this is really no surprise to me and I think most people who are rich think wealth buys them privilege or for some reason makes them think they are better than everyone else. If someone is rich or famous they can basically get away with murder. So at least this sentence is better than nothing.
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
I wonder what the role of the courts is in providing natural justice to the victims of crime. It's an honest question...I'd be interested in other people's views.

It seems to me the sentence is justifiable from a rehabilitation point of view. In terms of the message it sends the larger community, and the natural justice it provides the victims, it appears inadequate.
 

Reverend Rick

Frubal Whore
Premium Member
Adults get punishment, children get rehabilitated. Adults should know better. As far as money is concerned, it comes as no surprise that you can buy different levels of legal representation. Otherwise why would one lawyer be able to command more money than others?

A person should be able to employ the best defence their money can buy. Just look at O.J. Simpson and his dream team.

Our legal system has two options, let a few guilty slip through the cracks or let a few inocent be jailed for no reason. No system is perfect, which way do you want the mistake to happen?
 

Dirty Penguin

Master Of Ceremony
He is a kid, who wants him in prison? We as society need to figure out when a child becomes an adult. Could he vote, get married, buy a gun, beer, liquor? But we can charge him as an adult?

16 is too young to be driving. These are adult things. He is not an adult, so we try to fix him not warehouse him for life.

The flip side is we should give him the needle for what he done if he is an adult.

Interesting....

Would it had made a difference if he was 18? Does 2 years really make a big difference mentally?

We have a lot of things backwards in this country...such as being 18, going to war and carrying automatic weapons..and being put in a position to kill but not able to buy alcohol in this country until you're 21....

So while this young man isn't of age to do most of this he did make the conscious decision to drink and the conscious decision to drive a car which ended up taking the lives of 4 people.....What's worse IMO is he stood behind social economic status as some sort of defence or ignorance of the law. Where's all that "personal responsibility" we keep hearing about from conservatives and the like?

NEW DETAILS: Pothast found guilty of vehicular homicide

Teen charged with vehicular homicide in deadly crash | Local & Regional | Seattle News, Weather, Sports, Breaking News | KOMO News
 
Last edited:

McBell

Unbound
there is a difference between not knowing right from wrong and doing whatever you feel like because you know your families money will gt you off the hook.
 

McBell

Unbound
By Josh Voorhees

Here's an Internet outrage-inducing story that has been bubbling up for the past few days and appears to have finally hit critical mass: A Texas judge on Tuesday sentenced a wealthy 16-year-old boy to 10 years of probation for a horrific drunken driving crash that killed four people and seriously injured two others this summer. But it's not the relatively lenient sentence that has people up in arms—it's the apparent reasoning behind it. Here's the ABC affiliate in Dallas with the details of the teen's defense:
Prior to sentencing, a psychologist called by the defense, Dr. G. Dick Miller, testified that [Ethan] Couch's life could be salvaged with one to two years' treatment and no contact with his parents. ... Miller said Couch's parents gave him "freedoms no young person should have." He called Couch a product of "affluenza," where his family felt that wealth bought privilege and there was no rational link between behavior and consequences.​
He said Couch got whatever he wanted. As an example, Miller said Couch's parents gave no punishment after police ticketed the then-15-year-old when he was found in a parked pickup with a passed out, undressed, 14-year-old girl. Miller also pointed out that Couch was allowed to drive at age 13. He said the teen was emotionally flat and needed years of therapy.​
According to police, Couch was going 70 miles-per-hour in his father's Ford F-350 pickup in a 40 mph zone when he lost control and started a deadly chain of collisions that claimed the lives of: 24-year-old Breanna Mitchell, whose car had broken down on the side of the road; Hollie Boyles and her 21-year-old daughter Shelby, who lived nearby and had come outside to help Mitchell; and Brian Jennings, a youth pastor who was also playing the role of good samaritan. Two of the seven passengers riding in Couch's truck were also seriously injured.

Earlier in the night, police say that several of the passengers were caught on camera stealing two cases of beer from a local Walmart. At the time of the crash, Couch had a blood alcohol content of 0.24, three times the legal limit for an adult, and also had traces of Valium in his system, according to police. He pleaded guilty last week to four counts of intoxication manslaughter and two counts of intoxication assault causing serious bodily injury.

Now's a good time to take a quick step back and remember that the destined-to-be-mocked-by-a-hashtag "affluenza" excuse wasn't actually mentioned by the Judge Jean Boyd when she handed out her sentence. Indeed, Boyd has yet to publicly explain her rationale for handing out 10 years of probation instead of the 20-year prison sentence that prosecutors and the victims' families had asked for. Still, it certainly appears as though the judge bought at least some of what the defense was selling, which in addition to the idea that the family's wealth left the teen apparently unable to understand right from wrong also focused on his parents' strained relationship. ("This kid has been in a system that’s sick," Miller said. "If he goes to jail, that’s just another sick system.")

Given the "affluenza" defense—along with the fact that the teen's parents will be the ones paying for his stay at a $450,000-a-year, in-patient rehab facility near Newport Beach, Calif.—one doesn't have to squint to see what looks an awful lot like a double-standard predicated on the teen's family wealth. "Money always seems to keep [the kid] out of trouble," said Eric Boyles, whose wife and daughter were killed in the crash. "Ultimately today, I felt that money did prevail. If [he] had been any other youth, I feel like the circumstances would have been different." Or, as Dallas Morning News editorial writer Mike Hashimoto put it Wednesday: "Despite all the death in his wake, Couch didn’t learn a thing he didn’t already know: It’s far better to come from that wealthy place where actions seldom have those nasty old consequences. That’s for other folks."

Ethan Couch-Affluenza: Texas teen spared prison time in deadly drunk driving crash after offering wealth-based defense.

Surprised this hasn't shown up yet.

What about the real victims in this case?
What compensation does the rich kid owe them?
Or, if you believe that affluenza bull **** and his parents are the guilty ones in this case, what compensation do they, the parents, owe?
 

McBell

Unbound
He is a kid, who wants him in prison?
Probably those who feel that his punishment should fit the crime.
I mean, it isn;t like he did not know what he was doing was wrong.
It is not like he had no choice in the matter.

We as society need to figure out when a child becomes an adult. Could he vote, get married, buy a gun, beer, liquor? But we can charge him as an adult?
Yet he had beer.
Enough to be more than twice the legal limit.
Nothing was mentioned about a gun.
Interesting you bring that up.

16 is too young to be driving. These are adult things. He is not an adult, so we try to fix him not warehouse him for life.
And yet he has a drivers license.
One wonders what is the point of this fantasy land diversion?

The flip side is we should give him the needle for what he done if he is an adult.
Your false dichotomy not withstanding....:roll:
 

McBell

Unbound
Adults get punishment, children get rehabilitated. Adults should know better. As far as money is concerned, it comes as no surprise that you can buy different levels of legal representation. Otherwise why would one lawyer be able to command more money than others?

A person should be able to employ the best defence their money can buy. Just look at O.J. Simpson and his dream team.

Our legal system has two options, let a few guilty slip through the cracks or let a few inocent be jailed for no reason. No system is perfect, which way do you want the mistake to happen?

Even more compelling evidence of the great divide the rich claim does not exist.
Have the rich been lying to themselves for so long that they now believe their own lie?
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
A contributing problem is that drunk driving isn't punished as harshly as it should be (IMO).
So you take an underage kid, add in a crime which is too tolerated, & the sentence makes sense.
But I find the "affluence" defense ridiculous.
 

Reverend Rick

Frubal Whore
Premium Member
Interesting....

Would it had made a difference if he was 18? Does 2 years really make a big difference mentally?

We have a lot of things backwards in this country...such as being 18, going to war and carrying automatic weapons..and being put in a position to kill but not able to buy alcohol in this country until you're 21....

So while this young man isn't of age to do most of this he did make the conscious decision to drink and the conscious decision to drive a car which ended up taking the lives of 4 people.....What's worse IMO he he stood behind social economic status as some sort of defence or ignorance of the law.

NEW DETAILS: Pothast found guilty of vehicular homicide

Teen charged with vehicular homicide in deadly crash | Local & Regional | Seattle News, Weather, Sports, Breaking News | KOMO News

Sorry, the male brain does not fire on all cylinders till your mid twenties. It is not like he got mad and shot these folks. If I let my 16 year old grandchild have the keys to my beemer and he drives 160 on the highway and kills alot of folks would it be any different handing him a gun when he was upset?

The kid got drunk, messed up and went to court and pled guilty to manslaughter. He did not lie or try to get out of things. The judge wants him fixed not ruined for life in prison.

Do you really see him with the general population in prison? He would be raped every day, is that what you want?

He is a kid not a man.

If you really think he is a man, lets give him the needle for killing those folks. OK?
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
Adults get punishment, children get rehabilitated. Adults should know better.

To some extent I agree, but there is an important rehab role in adult punishment, else we are simply training transgressors to be lifelong criminals. Equally, there must be a punishment aspect in dealing with children who have willfully caused harm.
The relative importance of the two aspects might change, certainly.

But this 'child' was 16, and was taking adult actions, which caused adult harm. I'm not suggesting, as some are, throwing him in prison for the rest of his life.


As far as money is concerned, it comes as no surprise that you can buy different levels of legal representation. Otherwise why would one lawyer be able to command more money than others?

A person should be able to employ the best defence their money can buy. Just look at O.J. Simpson and his dream team.

Agreed. I think the impact this improved defence has on the outcome of cases is too great, but that's kinda a separate argument.

Our legal system has two options, let a few guilty slip through the cracks or let a few inocent be jailed for no reason. No system is perfect, which way do you want the mistake to happen?

This isn't a case of guilt or innocence, though. The facts don't seem to be contested, it's more the interpretation of them.
I think we, as a society, get a little too caught up in equating understanding of the reasons behind something with mitigation of it's seriousness sometimes.

The victims are just as dead whether this boy's parents were competent or not. And when the boy turns 18, we suddenly flip a switch that makes him responsible for his own actions, despite the fact he's not one iota more mature than he was when 17.
 

Reverend Rick

Frubal Whore
Premium Member
Even more compelling evidence of the great divide the rich claim does not exist.
Have the rich been lying to themselves for so long that they now believe their own lie?
I never made that claim. All lawyers are not created equal. The joke is what we consider adequate representation when we appoint a lawyer.
 
Last edited:

Slapstick

Active Member
I'm thinking the truck he drove would not be in his name, the parents could be sued in Civil Court.
So if a 16-year-old drunk on valium ran over your legs, broke them, and killed the rest of your family, you would be perfectly fine with him getting 10 years’ probation. As long as his family pays you for all the damages that was done to you and yours. :no: You do realize life isn't something you can get back.

But wait! Maybe, just maybe, one day, he will learn to live like a reasonable human being and not kill others while drinking so long as he has loads of money and can buy his way out of anything. :no:

That idiot will never do anything productive with his life to contribute to society other than make more excuses for himself and his terrible family that did nothing to instill any life lessons and had to rely on a court system to do so after he killed 3 people. That is a little too late for second chances.

Killing one person is bad enough, but three? He should have realized he isn't invincible long before he got his drivers license. If his parents are responsible for his own retarded actions then they should be put on probation or thrown in jail with him for being BAD parents.
 

McBell

Unbound
I'm thinking the truck he drove would not be in his name, the parents could be sued in Civil Court.

I am thinking that if the defense of "affluenza" had any merit what-so-ever the parents would now be up on trial.

Now, since the defense of "affluenza" is nothing more than a big steaming pile of bull ****...
 
Top