21720
Post by: LordofHats
CNN
To families of the victims, Ethan Couch was a killer on the road, a drunken teenage driver who caused a crash that left four people dead.
To the defense, the youth is himself a victim -- of "affuenza," according to one psychologist -- the product of wealthy, privileged parents who never set limits for the boy.
To a judge, who sentenced Couch to 10 years' probation but no jail time, he's a defendant in need of treatment.
Boyles: Wife, daughter were givers
Dr. Drew: 'Affluenza' is ridiculous
DUI crash kills 4, teen gets probation
The decision disappointed prosecutors and stunned victims' family members, who say they feel that Couch got off too easy. Prosecutors had asked for the maximum of 20 years behind bars.
"Let's face it ... There needs to be some justice here," Eric Boyles, who lost his wife and daughter, told CNN's Anderson Cooper 360 on Wednesday night.
"For 25 weeks, I've been going through a healing process. And so when the verdict came out, I mean, my immediate reaction is -- I'm back to Week 1. We have accomplished nothing here. My healing process is out the window," he said.
Lawyers for Couch, 16, had argued that the teen's parents should share a part of the blame for the crash because they never set limits for the boy and gave him everything he wanted.
According to CNN affiliate WFAA, a psychologist called by the defense described Couch as a product of "affluenza."
He reportedly testified that the teen's family felt wealth bought privilege, and that Couch's life could be turned around with one to two years of treatment and no contact with his parents.
Couch was sentenced by a juvenile court judge on Tuesday. If he violates the terms of his probation, he could face up to 10 years of incarceration, according to a statement from the Tarrant County Criminal District Attorney's Office.
Judge Jean Boyd told the court she would not release Couch to his parents, but would work to find the teen a long-term treatment facility.
"There are absolutely no consequences for what occurred that day," said Boyles. "The primary message has to absolutely be that money and privilege can't buy justice in this country."
His wife, Hollie Boyles, and daughter, Shelby, left their home to help Breanna Mitchell, whose SUV had broken down. Brian Jennings, a youth pastor, was driving past and also stopped to help.
All four were killed when the teen's pickup plowed into the pedestrians. Couch's vehicle also struck a parked car, which then slid into another vehicle driving in the opposite direction.
Two people riding in the bed of the teen's pickup were tossed in the crash and severely injured.
One is no longer able to move or talk because of a brain injury, while the other suffered internal injuries and broken bones.
"There is nothing the judge could have done to lessen the suffering for any of those families," said defense attorney Scott Brown, CNN affiliate KTVT reported.
"(The judge) fashioned a sentence that is going to keep Ethan under the thumb of the justice system for the next 10 years," he said. "And if Ethan doesn't do what he's supposed to do, if he has one misstep at all, then this judge, or an adult judge when he's transferred, can then incarcerate him."
Earlier on the night of the accident, June 15, Couch and some friends had stolen beer from a local Wal-Mart. Three hours after the crash, tests showed he had a blood alcohol content of 0.24, three times the legal limit, according to the district attorney's office.
"We are disappointed by the punishment assessed but have no power under the law to change or overturn it," said Assistant District Attorney Richard Alpert. "Our thoughts and prayers are with the families and we regret that this outcome has added to the pain and suffering they have endured."
Mostly I care most about the bold part. Just wow. Any Texas folk who know more about this incident?
23
Post by: djones520
What is the name for children with poor parents who don't put boundaries on their children?
29784
Post by: timetowaste85
Sterilize the kid, put him in jail for 10 years, send the rich parents to the electric chair. I'm in a good mood tonight. 
50336
Post by: azazel the cat
Yeah, so that's not a thing that is recognized by the APA or the AMA. Wealthy people can always find a crackpot with a novel theory if the price is right. It will not work.
21720
Post by: LordofHats
Read the article. Kid got off. Stole beer. Got drunk. Killed four people and injured two others. Pretty much put all the blame on the parents and got a slap on the wrist.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
 azazel the cat wrote:Yeah, so that's not a thing that is recognized by the APA or the AMA. Wealthy people can always find a crackpot with a novel theory if the price is right. It will not work.
The AMA is considering obesity a disease these days, so I don't know how much stock we should put in them anyway 
722
Post by: Kanluwen
 LordofHats wrote:Read the article. Kid got off. Stole beer. Got drunk. Killed four people and injured two others. Pretty much put all the blame on the parents and got a slap on the wrist.
That does not actually mean that the reason for the punishment was because of the defense though.
28228
Post by: Cheesecat
I wouldn't call being rich a mental illness but I do think it has the possibility of making people delusional.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
Affluenza......Affluenza......fething AFFLUENZA!!!!!!!!!
I give up, I absolutely give up? Who wants to go start an Island nation where stupid puns like these are outlawed.
OT: I really wish that in order for a theory to be used in court it had to go through a peer journal
21720
Post by: LordofHats
 Kanluwen wrote: LordofHats wrote:Read the article. Kid got off. Stole beer. Got drunk. Killed four people and injured two others. Pretty much put all the blame on the parents and got a slap on the wrist.
That does not actually mean that the reason for the punishment was because of the defense though.
Maybe It's just crazy though. Apparently he's going into foster care, so either the defense did a really good job blaming the parents or there's trouble at home.
29784
Post by: timetowaste85
 hotsauceman1 wrote:Affluenza......Affluenza......fething AFFLUENZA!!!!!!!!!
I give up, I absolutely give up? Who wants to go start an Island nation where stupid puns like these are outlawed.
OT: I really wish that in order for a theory to be used in court it had to go through a peer journal
I think it's time to start jumping on my bandwagon to sterilize stupid people, wouldn't you agree finally? 
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
No. We need stupid people to breed, how else will we get our fast ffood workers
42144
Post by: cincydooley
 hotsauceman1 wrote:No. We need stupid people to breed, how else will we get our fast ffood workers
Philosophy and French Literature majors. Duh.
<----- minored in philosophy.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
Philosophy is great and fun, just dont expect a job unless you go all the way to PHD
23
Post by: djones520
hotsauceman1 wrote:Philosophy is great and fun, just dont expect a job unless you go all the way to PHD
And then your only job will be to teach those who are throwing their educations away.
68355
Post by: easysauce
any way you cut it, this kids getting off light for what should really be four counts of murder,
if he had gone out and shot or stabbed four people, Im pretty sure he wouldnt be getting off so easy...
why is it so forgivable to kill people with your car compared to other stupid ways we get others killed?
it always reminds me of the scenes in farenheit 451 where people just routinely get turned into red pasts by the super fast cars and no one blinks an eye.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
hotsauceman1 wrote:Philosophy is great and fun, just dont expect a job unless you go all the way to PHD
I actually did it because we had to take a religion or philosophy class at my school, so I took logic and critical reasoning. One of the best classes I've ever taken. Then I read somewhere that people with philosophy backgrounds tended to do better on the LSAT, so I stuck with it.
In glad I have my other degrees, but I don't regret the philosophy minor at al.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
My philosophy class this semester was fun, Logic and critical thinking was fun and learning how to find fallacies is real fun.
21720
Post by: LordofHats
 easysauce wrote:any way you cut it, this kids getting off light for what should really be four counts of murder,
if he had gone out and shot or stabbed four people, Im pretty sure he wouldnt be getting off so easy...
why is it so forgivable to kill people with your car compared to other stupid ways we get others killed?
it always reminds me of the scenes in farenheit 451 where people just routinely get turned into red pasts by the super fast cars and no one blinks an eye.
I actually could forgive drunk driving as an accident, but stealing beer and then drunk driving and maiming/killing 6 people all in one night is... Yeah not easy to look past that for me.
5470
Post by: sebster
People often conclude that crazy let offs like this are the result of very clever lawyers, but given this guy turned up with basically a 'bad parents' story and catch-phrase, affluenza, I've got to say there's a lot less there than a lot of poor kids with horrific childhoods who still get heavy jail sentences.
I'm starting to think these kinds of let-offs are more the result of that weird glitch in the human brain that makes us relate and empathise with richer more powerful people, while we ignore those below us. So judge or jury see this story of bad parenting and feel it and let the kid off, but some poor kid comes in to court and a similar or even worse story isn't seen the same way.
Seriously, the human brain is fething screwy. And now some kid who acted like a reckless ass and killed four people is walking away because of it.
27391
Post by: purplefood
I'd be more inclined to make an example of him because of this argument.
This sentence is far too light.
58873
Post by: BobtheInquisitor
 djones520 wrote:What is the name for children with poor parents who don't put boundaries on their children?
Guilty. Automatically Appended Next Post: I can't even imagine what I would be feeling if I lost my wife and child like that. And then to see the little plop get off with only probation? I'd probably get violent--and I'd have a hell of a defense...
21720
Post by: LordofHats
We can always hope he pulls a Zimmerman and gets himself arrested again.
P.S. Zimmerman'd 
58613
Post by: -Shrike-
That's just fethed up. He killed 4 people, maimed 2, damaged several cars, and was driving whilst being illegally drunk, and walks away with probation because of "bad parenting"? If the parents were actually that awful, they'd have been sent to the electric chair.
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
That judge has just set a horrible, horrible precedent for crack pot defenses. I really hope that the DA appeals this case.
22783
Post by: Soladrin
Wow, so, did he bribe the judge or something? I don't even...
221
Post by: Frazzled
Strangely I have a cure. Drop his ass of in Compton at night. Film it with cameras. We can call it Running Jerk.
The decision shows there are indeed two justice systems in this country, one for the rich and one for the poor.
But then again, show me a country where that isn't the case.
33307
Post by: Gutsnagga
This makes me think of the movie chronicle for some reason.
I bet his parents could afford better lawyers than those of the victims.
77922
Post by: Overread
Well considering the upper classes did used to inbreed a lot with each other (keeping money and land and influence within the right circles ) there could be a case for very old rich families that yeah its kinda inbreeding bad genes
Also this is interesting;
Judge Jean Boyd told the court she would not release Couch to his parents, but would work to find the teen a long-term treatment facility.
I think that there is a shift in the justice system toward corrective justice instead of purely punishment based justice. If you send the kid away to gaol then that is all he will get; with little chance for any corrective support. As a result you take a self entitled (and when released likely still rich) individual and all you do is embitter and likely alienate them from the greater part of society. So whilst you've given a nice big punishment little has been done to ensure correct behaviour upon release (indeed as part of the regular justice system he might even be influenced to perform similar or greater acts of criminal harm).
Removal from his parents influence is a fairly major thing and if he is sent to a corrective facility one might end up with an individual who can be corrected to be more contributing to society instead of leaching or harming society.
There is also the factor that if he voids probation he's looking at likely gaol time and it could be that the judge is half banking on the fact that with an individual who has never had limits much before the sudden imposition of them might easily cause a backlash - net result is he ends up in goal fully of his own accord and can't plea the "I'm a kid give me a chance" angle because he's already had it.
These are always complicated issues and there are always two sides of every coin. Whilst an individual is responsible for their actions understanding and appreciation of the factors that result in them leading up to that decision and also the influences that might affect what choice they make that that point is critical. It's only with that understanding that one can aim to treat the CAUSE and not just the effect (because if you deal with the latter you've not actually dealt with the problem behind it - as a result you leave the option open for a repeat offence).
At the end of the day what do you want? A long goal sentence that leaves you with an individual who is likely to repeat the same pattern of behaviour once released; or an alternative approach that results in a person who is significantly less likely to repeat the same process again.
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
easysauce wrote:any way you cut it, this kids getting off light for what should really be four counts of murder,
if he had gone out and shot or stabbed four people, Im pretty sure he wouldnt be getting off so easy...
why is it so forgivable to kill people with your car compared to other stupid ways we get others killed?
it always reminds me of the scenes in farenheit 451 where people just routinely get turned into red pasts by the super fast cars and no one blinks an eye.
Clearly, if he had had a "high capacity assault truck" he wouldn't have gotten off so lightly. It's obvious we have a vehicle problem in this country and we need the Gov't to limit the types of vehicles that people can own
Yeah, this story just pisses me off... Although, part of me hopes that parts of this "affluenza" is contagious, because I could sure use some right now
I wouldn't be so pissed if he were in some form of prison while at the same time getting "treatment" for whatever BS people want to say he has.
5531
Post by: Leigen_Zero
hotsauceman1 wrote:Affluenza......Affluenza......fething AFFLUENZA!!!!!!!!!
I give up, I absolutely give up? Who wants to go start an Island nation where stupid puns like these are outlawed.
OT: I really wish that in order for a theory to be used in court it had to go through a peer journal
We shall start the Island Nations of Dakka. Where there is a chicken in every pot, and a Riptide in every Allies detachment! 
But lets just face it here folks, we can waffle about justice and injustice, but we need to remember that the judicial system in the Western world is not about who is right and who is wrong, it's about who can spend the most on a legal team...
77922
Post by: Overread
 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
I wouldn't be so pissed if he were in some form of prison while at the same time getting "treatment" for whatever BS people want to say he has.
Depends what kind of facility he's sent to - some of them basically are just like prison only with doctors as well as wardens - he might not end up in one like that; however the mention of him being isolated from his parents might mean that he has to be to prevent contact outside of treatment times.
36184
Post by: Alfndrate
hotsauceman1 wrote:No. We need stupid people to breed, how else will we get our fast ffood workers
Aren't you a fast food worker?
I mean I wouldn't say you're stupid
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
 Alfndrate wrote: hotsauceman1 wrote:No. We need stupid people to breed, how else will we get our fast ffood workers
Aren't you a fast food worker?
I mean I wouldn't say you're stupid
See now, I don't believe that fast food is the de facto industry for stupid people. Actually, it's quite honorable as a "First Job" while one is still living at home with the parents and attending whatever version of High School they attend (I know that UK and other countries call it something else)
39827
Post by: scarletsquig
More like kid with rich parents bribed the judge.
It happens, a lot. Money gets you off the hook for anything, unless you piss off other people with money.
Just the way the world works.
7075
Post by: chaos0xomega
Meanwhile nobody mentioned that the father/husband of 2 of the people killed equates healing with punishment... nobody? No? Is that what "healing" passes for these days? Vengeance?
722
Post by: Kanluwen
 scarletsquig wrote:More like kid with rich parents bribed the judge.
It happens, a lot. Money gets you off the hook for anything, unless you piss off other people with money.
Just the way the world works.
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight...
35006
Post by: Medium of Death
chaos0xomega wrote:Meanwhile nobody mentioned that the father/husband of 2 of the people killed equates healing with punishment... nobody? No? Is that what "healing" passes for these days? Vengeance?
Is this the best we can do for blaming the victim these days? I thought it was a bit strange that the guy put himself back to "week 1", but then again this guy has had his family destroyed and the person that does it gets to walk away.
11194
Post by: Krellnus
Great, so having your head up your rear is a mental illness, what next?
221
Post by: Frazzled
 Overread wrote:Well considering the upper classes did used to inbreed a lot with each other (keeping money and land and influence within the right circles ) there could be a case for very old rich families that yeah its kinda inbreeding bad genes
Also this is interesting;
Judge Jean Boyd told the court she would not release Couch to his parents, but would work to find the teen a long-term treatment facility.
I think that there is a shift in the justice system toward corrective justice instead of purely punishment based justice. If you send the kid away to gaol then that is all he will get; with little chance for any corrective support. As a result you take a self entitled (and when released likely still rich) individual and all you do is embitter and likely alienate them from the greater part of society. So whilst you've given a nice big punishment little has been done to ensure correct behaviour upon release (indeed as part of the regular justice system he might even be influenced to perform similar or greater acts of criminal harm).
Removal from his parents influence is a fairly major thing and if he is sent to a corrective facility one might end up with an individual who can be corrected to be more contributing to society instead of leaching or harming society.
There is also the factor that if he voids probation he's looking at likely gaol time and it could be that the judge is half banking on the fact that with an individual who has never had limits much before the sudden imposition of them might easily cause a backlash - net result is he ends up in goal fully of his own accord and can't plea the "I'm a kid give me a chance" angle because he's already had it.
These are always complicated issues and there are always two sides of every coin. Whilst an individual is responsible for their actions understanding and appreciation of the factors that result in them leading up to that decision and also the influences that might affect what choice they make that that point is critical. It's only with that understanding that one can aim to treat the CAUSE and not just the effect (because if you deal with the latter you've not actually dealt with the problem behind it - as a result you leave the option open for a repeat offence).
At the end of the day what do you want? A long goal sentence that leaves you with an individual who is likely to repeat the same pattern of behaviour once released; or an alternative approach that results in a person who is significantly less likely to repeat the same process again.
Translation: in no way will anything bad happen to him even though he killed more people then Charles Manson.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
Alfndrate wrote: hotsauceman1 wrote:No. We need stupid people to breed, how else will we get our fast ffood workers
Aren't you a fast food worker?
I mean I wouldn't say you're stupid
If you have seen me cook y'know the food we make is anything but fast. And yes I'm a fast food worker and not ashamed. Still I really don't want my next jod to be in food, it is a horrible job with customers always complaining about how you made the food or other things.
221
Post by: Frazzled
chaos0xomega wrote:Meanwhile nobody mentioned that the father/husband of 2 of the people killed equates healing with punishment... nobody? No? Is that what "healing" passes for these days? Vengeance?
The best vengeance is... vengeance.
7075
Post by: chaos0xomega
 Medium of Death wrote:chaos0xomega wrote:Meanwhile nobody mentioned that the father/husband of 2 of the people killed equates healing with punishment... nobody? No? Is that what "healing" passes for these days? Vengeance?
Is this the best we can do for blaming the victim these days?
I thought it was a bit strange that the guy put himself back to "week 1", but then again this guy has had his family destroyed and the person that does it gets to walk away.
I'm not blaming the victim, I think the sentence, assuming the judge actually has good intentions of trying to rehabilitate the kid, was a good one, but at the same time I think the "victims" reaction is indicative/representative of the problem in the US regarding the justice system.
1206
Post by: Easy E
Medium of Death wrote:chaos0xomega wrote:Meanwhile nobody mentioned that the father/husband of 2 of the people killed equates healing with punishment... nobody? No? Is that what "healing" passes for these days? Vengeance?
Is this the best we can do for blaming the victim these days?
I thought it was a bit strange that the guy put himself back to "week 1", but then again this guy has had his family destroyed and the person that does it gets to walk away.
Maybe he will become a real world Batman now?
50336
Post by: azazel the cat
hotsauceman1 wrote:Affluenza......Affluenza......fething AFFLUENZA!!!!!!!!!
I give up, I absolutely give up? Who wants to go start an Island nation where stupid puns like these are outlawed.
OT: I really wish that in order for a theory to be used in court it had to go through a peer journal
Generally the prosecution can just raise a Daubert motion in limine and prevent whichever quack is promoting their crackpot theory from testifying as an expert witness, and then simply allow the Frye test to exclude the crackpot theory itself.
Affluenza would most definitely be tossed out of court in response to either of these.
61627
Post by: KalashnikovMarine
Hang the kid. State needs to appeal asap.
16387
Post by: Manchu
 sebster wrote:I'm starting to think these kinds of let-offs are more the result of that weird glitch in the human brain that makes us relate and empathise with richer more powerful people, while we ignore those below us. [...] Seriously, the human brain is fething screwy.
No need to reduce humanity to brain chemistry, even if that is the fashion. It's simply the case that similarly situated people are more likely to sympathize with one another than others. On balance, judges tend to have a lot more in common with rich defendants than poor ones.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
LOLWAT.
Seriously? "Hang the kid"?
16387
Post by: Manchu
chaos0xomega wrote:Meanwhile nobody mentioned that the father/husband of 2 of the people killed equates healing with punishment... nobody? No? Is that what "healing" passes for these days? Vengeance?
There's more to justice, even retributive justice, than some notion of personal vendetta. Most simply put, justice is the idea that people should get what they deserve. When people maliciously or recklessly harm others, they deserve commensurate punishment. When they escape such punishment, justice is not served. Why is justice important to victims and the people generally? Because the sudden, seemingly arbitrary loss of the most important elements of one's life creates an existential crisis, not just for the particular victims but for the whole community. By asserting justice, we establish order in the wake of chaos.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Manchu wrote: sebster wrote:I'm starting to think these kinds of let-offs are more the result of that weird glitch in the human brain that makes us relate and empathise with richer more powerful people, while we ignore those below us. [...] Seriously, the human brain is fething screwy.
No need to reduce humanity to brain chemistry, even if that is the fashion. It's simply the case that similarly situated people are more likely to sympathize with one another than others. On balance, judges tend to have a lot more in common with rich defendants than poor ones.
And "on balance", prosecutors tend to overreach in terms of what charges they file/sentences they suggest when it comes to high profile cases. Judges have the ability to reduce the sentencing structure or suggest alternatives to the juries.
I'm not going to say that I think there should be no jailtime here, but I really think this case is being played up for publicity's sake as a "class warfare" thing. There is every chance that the sentencing given by the judge here was as harsh as it could be considering the evidence presented by the prosecution and the prosecution overreaching in terms of what charges they filed.
16387
Post by: Manchu
No, Kan, that's not how prosecution works in the real world.
221
Post by: Frazzled
He killed multiple people, so yea actually.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Manchu wrote:No, Kan, that's not how prosecution works in the real world.
Actually Manchu, yeah. It is.
It is not the rule of thumb certainly but it is not unheard of for the prosecution to overreach in filing charges hoping for a plea bargain rather than it going to court.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Manchu wrote:No, Kan, that's not how prosecution works in the real world.
They only typically overreach if pushing to get a settlement. if they push too much they lose and don't like to lose. They have no incentive to lose or over charge once it actually gets to trial.
16387
Post by: Manchu
No seriously it's not. Prosecutors in most states (all of the ones I've worked in/have friends who work in them) work with rationalized sentencing guidelines. From the perspective of a lawyer with experience in criminal justice, i can tell that you are talking from ignorance/pop culture.
61627
Post by: KalashnikovMarine
Just is best found on the end of a rope.
77922
Post by: Overread
The problem there is that you've then created a duel standard - do not kill is the law; but on the flip side the law is then killing people. You've also got the risk that by continuing the killing you've now created two parties who have lost loved ones and that might well spark further criminal activity between those two groups (as more revenge takes place).
Also death sentences don't stop crime; accidental or unintentional crime isn't stopped by it at all and planned criminal activity nearly always works with the idea that they will get away with it (ergo the punishment doesn't matter because they won't get caught). In the wider scope of things you also introduce great risk that if you wrongly accuse someone and prosecute them suddenly you've had someone hanged for a crime that they did not commit - and you can't restore that one bit if you find out a week - year - two years - ten years down the line.
16387
Post by: Manchu
Overread wrote:do not kill is the law; but on the flip side the law is then killing people
The law provides that individuals qua individuals may not kill; it does not provide that the (persons acting on behalf of the) state may not kill. There are two kinds of deterrence, specific and general. Whether capital punishment deters crime generally is controversial. (I would argue that general deterrence is not the only or even main reason for capital punishment.) Specific deterrence, on the other hand, is a question of whether the particular convict will commit the same crime again. There is no controversy about the efficacy of the death penalty in that regard.
61627
Post by: KalashnikovMarine
Dual standard
Killing is perfectly fine under the right conditions. The law is do not murder, which is unlawful killing.
Also it's not about prevetion of initial crimes, but we sure as hell can stop reoffenders.
79194
Post by: Co'tor Shas
Manchu wrote: Overread wrote:do not kill is the law; but on the flip side the law is then killing people
The law provides that individuals qua individuals may not kill; it does not provide that the (persons acting on behalf of the) state may not kill. There are two kinds of deterrence, specific and general. Whether capital punishment deters crime generally is controversial. (I would argue that general deterrence is not the only or even main reason for capital punishment.) Specific deterrence, on the other hand, is a question of whether the particular convict will commit the same crime again. There is no controversy about the efficacy of the death penalty in that regard.
I give no opinion, but I must post this.
(This is someone talking to the hangman that is about to hang him.)
'Do you really think all this deters crime, Mr Trooper?'
'Well, in the generality of things I'd say it's hard to tell, given that it's hard to find evidence of crimes not committed,' said the hangman, giving the trapdoor a final rattle. 'But in the specificality, sir, I'd say it's very efficacious.'
'Meaning what?'
'Meaning I've never seen someone up here more'n once, sir."
(from Going Postal by Terry Pratchett)
16387
Post by: Manchu
Thanks, yes, this is more correct than what I posted above.
58873
Post by: BobtheInquisitor
chaos0xomega wrote:Meanwhile nobody mentioned that the father/husband of 2 of the people killed equates healing with punishment... nobody? No? Is that what "healing" passes for these days? Vengeance?
The need for vengeance is a natural part of the human psyche. Part of the function of the justice system is to reassure the victims and their families that the system works--which seems like vengeance until you're the one who's wronged.
Knowing the little snit who killed his entire purpose in life is just going to therapy while enjoying the prime of his life, the prime he stole from a little girl, has got to be like salt in a wound. It's not like the dad can console himself by saying his loved ones' deaths served a purpose or prevented a worse tragedy--the (unrepentant?) murderer is still running free to hurt more people. Automatically Appended Next Post: chaos0xomega wrote: Medium of Death wrote:chaos0xomega wrote:Meanwhile nobody mentioned that the father/husband of 2 of the people killed equates healing with punishment... nobody? No? Is that what "healing" passes for these days? Vengeance?
Is this the best we can do for blaming the victim these days?
I thought it was a bit strange that the guy put himself back to "week 1", but then again this guy has had his family destroyed and the person that does it gets to walk away.
I'm not blaming the victim, I think the sentence, assuming the judge actually has good intentions of trying to rehabilitate the kid, was a good one, but at the same time I think the "victims" reaction is indicative/representative of the problem in the US regarding the justice system.
The kid killed 4 people and crippled 2 more at 16 years old. 10 years of probation isn't even enough for rehabilitation for someone so broken, let alone justice. Besides, DUI has a tremendously high recidivism rate.
Frankly, I don't think every criminal deserves to be rehabilitated and released, and certainly not in a decade or under for ruining 6 lives.
68355
Post by: easysauce
yeah.. you murder 4 people, I dont care what the excuse is,
aww, you were drunk? mommy and daddy didnt love you enough, or too much? oh it was with a car, so its an "accident"?
too flipping bad... if a kid stabs or shoots someone, we all freak out and want to over throw the 2nd amendmant... and hang the sucker...
but every year, after year after year, when far far far more people die to drunk drivers then guns, we keep slapping the drunk driver offenders on the wrist.... allowing them to repeat their habits...
we wouldnt let some gun murderer off the hook, so why do we constantly let car murderers off the hook?
722
Post by: Kanluwen
I don't think you know what "murder" is.
241
Post by: Ahtman
While killing someone, or multiple people, while drunk driving isn't legally murder, it certainly is an easily avoidable situation that doesn't bother me if the person carries the stigma of having murdered people.
39868
Post by: iproxtaco
If he were just getting the probation and some counselling I might have a bigger issue, but the fact that he's being separated from his parents and put in a facility seems alright, maybe leaning toward lenient. If the doctors fail then he'll probably break his probation and get thrown in jail anyway.
Though I do think the parents should be punished somehow, if they're supposedly to blame. Seems only fair that if the kid's not going to feel the full force of the law for killing four people and maiming two others, the parents should take some of it.
58873
Post by: BobtheInquisitor
 iproxtaco wrote:If he were just getting the probation and some counselling I might have a bigger issue, but the fact that he's being separated from his parents and put in a facility seems alright, maybe leaning toward lenient. If the doctors fail then he'll probably break his probation and get thrown in jail anyway.
Though I do think the parents should be punished somehow, if they're supposedly to blame. Seems only fair that if the kid's not going to feel the full force of the law for killing four people and maiming two others, the parents should take some of it.
If/when he breaks his probation, he will only be caught when he injures or kills more people. If your child was killed by this guy when he was supposed to be on probation, how would you feel? How could you possibly believe in the system anymore if it was so negligent?
39188
Post by: Bullockist
Affluenza sounds very elitist an un- PC. I suggest this form of malady be renamed Assluenza so not to exclude the poor.
Honestly ,don't blame the parents, are they to blame for him choosing to drink, and then choosing to drive? No , he chose to do it himself. Let the little snotrag learn a lesson, trouble is the judge decided not to teach him a lesson 
Honestly ,all these "suffering rich kids" need to go live with dirt poor kids for a summer to get some perspective.
39868
Post by: iproxtaco
 BobtheInquisitor wrote: iproxtaco wrote:If he were just getting the probation and some counselling I might have a bigger issue, but the fact that he's being separated from his parents and put in a facility seems alright, maybe leaning toward lenient. If the doctors fail then he'll probably break his probation and get thrown in jail anyway.
Though I do think the parents should be punished somehow, if they're supposedly to blame. Seems only fair that if the kid's not going to feel the full force of the law for killing four people and maiming two others, the parents should take some of it.
If/when he breaks his probation, he will only be caught when he injures or kills more people.
It's a possibility. I don't know how effective the doctors and counseling will be. I don't necessarily think twenty years in prison is the answer, considering there's still a chance he'll run someone over after jail time.
If your child was killed by this guy when he was supposed to be on probation, how would you feel? How could you possibly believe in the system anymore if it was so negligent?
We're arguing this after the fact, it lends a different perspective, at least to me. Before sentence was passed I'd probably be a lot harsher. I mean, he still killed four people, and injured another so badly they can't walk or talk. The sentence has been passed now, though. I'm not really sure if this kid needs punishment or actual help. Jail time would punish him, but then all you've got at the end of it is a thirty something man who spent the best years of his life in prison for some stupid mistakes he made when he was still a kid. I think the best result is some form of rehabilitation. I'm not saying he has a mental illness from being spoiled or anything stupid like that, but maybe his parental influence wasn't that great, maybe the best option really is to take him out of that environment where stealing cars and booze and driving whilst drunk and underage is acceptable, and get him some help.
Look, I'm actually only a few years older than him. I sympathize. Not many people have their heads screwed on straight at sixteen. I didn't. I can understand how one mistake whilst hanging out with a few friends can escalate. I'm thinking about the end result here. What do we want to come of this? Four dead people, one disabled person, and one, bitter blacklisted former inmate who might have spent more time behind bars than outside of them by the time he gets out? Or do we want at least something positive to come of this, however small, and try and turn some poorly adjusted teenager into a decent member of society?
It's not like I don't understand people who want to just throw him in jail. He's sixteen, but they were all his decisions, and I don't deny that maybe some form of actual justice might be needed.
19370
Post by: daedalus
iproxtaco wrote:
I don't necessarily think twenty years in prison is the answer, considering there's still a chance he'll run someone over after jail time.
Also, I'm not sure how prison is over in the UK, but here, you can't get anything but the crappiest jobs if you have a felony. It's literally on every application I've ever applied for, from fast food jobs to Fortune 500 companies. That makes for people who quickly become desperate enough to become repeat offenders.
For current society, there's no future for felons in this country, and it makes it worse for the rest of society.
12313
Post by: Ouze
In a way, this is refreshing. I mean, we've always suspected that in this country there is a de facto different criminal justice system for the affluent than there is for the rest of us, and now finally we have some honesty and openness to the process, when a murderer is now flat out declared too wealthy to jail.
I think this is a big step forward for us.
In an ideal word, as other posters have mentioned he'd be looking at 4 counts of murder as an adult. Better yet for him to be tried as a black adult, if we're wishlisting.
39188
Post by: Bullockist
 Ouze wrote:In a way, this is refreshing. I mean, we've always suspected that in this country there is a de facto different criminal justice system for the affluent than there is for the rest of us, and now finally we have some honesty and openness to the process, when a murderer is now flat out declared too wealthy to jail.
I think this is a big step forward for us.
In an ideal word, as other posters have mentioned he'd be looking at 4 counts of murder as an adult. Better yet for him to be tried as a black adult, if we're wishlisting.
Is this one of the benefits to having a transparent administration?
30287
Post by: Bromsy
I think a fair amount of blame is on society itself for deciding that 16 year olds are two years too young to sign legal binding documents but are somehow responsible enough to drive motorized vehicles weighing thousands of pounds at high speeds.
12313
Post by: Ouze
Well, this wasn't a federal judge. This is more of a Texas issue (although the flexibility of justice when confronted with wealth isn't, of course)
5470
Post by: sebster
Kanluwen wrote:And "on balance", prosecutors tend to overreach in terms of what charges they file/sentences they suggest when it comes to high profile cases. Judges have the ability to reduce the sentencing structure or suggest alternatives to the juries.
I'm not going to say that I think there should be no jailtime here, but I really think this case is being played up for publicity's sake as a "class warfare" thing. There is every chance that the sentencing given by the judge here was as harsh as it could be considering the evidence presented by the prosecution and the prosecution overreaching in terms of what charges they filed.
He killed four people through wildly reckless behaviour. I don't think its at all speculative to say that such a thing would almost always result in some kind of penalty that wasn't suspended, particularly if the defendant was poor.
But we have special rules for rich people, not just because they can afford better legal representation, but just because.
58873
Post by: BobtheInquisitor
I'm not saying he shouldn't have therapy and rehabilitation. I'm saying that should be the tail end of a serious prison term. If he gets out of jail with the prime of his life behind him and few prospects, he will be in a far better position than his victims.
36184
Post by: Alfndrate
Doesn't this set a precedent for future cases where a rich 20 something kills a hooker and goes on a drunken rampage?
"Oh I'm sorry your honor, but my client has affluenza"
39868
Post by: iproxtaco
 daedalus wrote: iproxtaco wrote:
I don't necessarily think twenty years in prison is the answer, considering there's still a chance he'll run someone over after jail time.
Also, I'm not sure how prison is over in the UK, but here, you can't get anything but the crappiest jobs if you have a felony. It's literally on every application I've ever applied for, from fast food jobs to Fortune 500 companies. That makes for people who quickly become desperate enough to become repeat offenders.
For current society, there's no future for felons in this country, and it makes it worse for the rest of society.
I'm not sure how a criminal record affects a job application but I know every job I've ever applied for has asked if I've had one. I'm gonna say it reflects negatively, just a hunch, but I don't know how difficult job finding is made.
241
Post by: Ahtman
A friend (don't laugh) of mine posted this on Facebook, and may be of interest.
I heard something on the radio which you'll find interesting. Had the judge given the teen the 20 year sentence, he would have been eligible for parole in 2 years. However, with the sentence given he will be in the system for the full 10 years.
34390
Post by: whembly
 Ahtman wrote:A friend (don't laugh) of mine posted this on Facebook, and may be of interest.
I heard something on the radio which you'll find interesting. Had the judge given the teen the 20 year sentence, he would have been eligible for parole in 2 years. However, with the sentence given he will be in the system for the full 10 years.
edit... dakka fail.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Ouze wrote:
Well, this wasn't a federal judge. This is more of a Texas issue (although the flexibility of justice when confronted with wealth isn't, of course)
I didn't know it was Texas until you mentioned it. I thought "I bet its Dallas" and womp there it was. Color me unsurprised. Automatically Appended Next Post: sebster wrote: Kanluwen wrote:And "on balance", prosecutors tend to overreach in terms of what charges they file/sentences they suggest when it comes to high profile cases. Judges have the ability to reduce the sentencing structure or suggest alternatives to the juries.
I'm not going to say that I think there should be no jailtime here, but I really think this case is being played up for publicity's sake as a "class warfare" thing. There is every chance that the sentencing given by the judge here was as harsh as it could be considering the evidence presented by the prosecution and the prosecution overreaching in terms of what charges they filed.
He killed four people through wildly reckless behaviour. I don't think its at all speculative to say that such a thing would almost always result in some kind of penalty that wasn't suspended, particularly if the defendant was poor.
But we have special rules for rich people, not just because they can afford better legal representation, but just because.
This is the exact sort of reason so many states have mandatory sentencing laws.
35006
Post by: Medium of Death
Ahtman wrote:A friend (don't laugh) of mine posted this on Facebook, and may be of interest.
I heard something on the radio which you'll find interesting. Had the judge given the teen the 20 year sentence, he would have been eligible for parole in 2 years. However, with the sentence given he will be in the system for the full 10 years.
How likely would that have been though? Still an interesting point.
70365
Post by: Gentleman_Jellyfish
Ahtman wrote:A friend (don't laugh) of mine posted this on Facebook, and may be of interest. I heard something on the radio which you'll find interesting. Had the judge given the teen the 20 year sentence, he would have been eligible for parole in 2 years. However, with the sentence given he will be in the system for the full 10 years.
I personally would have rather seen him visit a prison for 2 years than living the life he would on parole for 10, but I'm not at all affected by this so I have no clue what those involved would prefer.
5534
Post by: dogma
 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:
I personally would have rather seen him visit a prison for 2 years than living the life he would on parole for 10, but I'm not at all affected by this so I have no clue what those involved would prefer.
He would likely have been placed in juvenile detention for 2 years. After that he would have been transferred to an adult detention facility. I believe in some states, potentially including Texas, this subjects the sentence to mandatory review which may end in parole.
For what its worth, being placed in a treatment facility for 10 years means he likely won't be able to hold a job until he is 26, meaning that he will have to explain 2-8 years of white space (depending on education options offered by the facility itself) to any potential employer or school.
12313
Post by: Ouze
While it's true that he wasn't, like, 100% free of any consequence, I still maintain the best solution would have been to have him locked in a room with a Sister of Battle and a lighter, to answer for his crimes before receiving the Emperor's Mercy.
5534
Post by: dogma
Ouze wrote:While it's true that he wasn't, like, 100% free of any consequence, I still maintain the best solution would have been to have him locked in a room with a Sister of Battle and a lighter, to answer for his crimes before receiving the Emperor's Mercy.
Another thing I just thought of is that, while he can be kept as a ward of the treatment facility until he is 18, that might not be possible after the fact; it really depends on the conditions of his probation.
12313
Post by: Ouze
You think they might say, on his 18th birthday, that his defense was right: that his Affluenza is so severe that he might need to stay committed for another 4 or 5 years?
5534
Post by: dogma
Ouze wrote:You think they might say, on his 18th birthday, that his defense was right: that his Affluenza is so severe that he might need to stay committed for another 4 or 5 years?
I was thinking that his probation might stipulate that he remains committed for the 10 year duration, and that any noncompliance with staff be considered a violation. In that instance, if he did fail to comply (and he will, at least once), he would end up in jail as a violator of probation; which usually messes with the parole schedule and wouldn't look good at his hypothetical transfer review.
Of course, I don't know if any of that is part of the offenders probation, or even could be, I'm just engaging in a slightly more complicated bit of legitimate schadenfreude...and also hypothesizing as to the reasoning behind the verdict.
58873
Post by: BobtheInquisitor
Alfndrate wrote:Doesn't this set a precedent for future cases where a rich 20 something kills a hooker and goes on a drunken rampage?
"Oh I'm sorry your honor, but my client has affluenza"
You think a lawyer hasn't stopped that low yet?
5534
Post by: dogma
That case is all kinds of fethed up. It is a lawyer's duty to defend his client even if he finds the act distasteful, but Scarpa made no bones about his disregard for the law; he seemed like a (bad) mob lawyer.
This is his law office.
It presents images and statements that specifically relate to police pursuit, intoxication, and drug use; suggesting that Mr. Scarpa can successfully defend people from those charges.
Given the defense Mr. Scarpa mounted in this case he obviously had no intention of defending his client, only billing him.
1206
Post by: Easy E
So a quick thought on this. Affluenze is supposed to be....
"the defense argued that Couch shouldn’t be held as responsible as he might be because his parents were so permissive in their style of child rearing that Couch did not experience socially appropriate consequences for his socially inappropriate behavior."
Does that mean we can have Non-Affluenze from poverty or bad parenting styles leading to the same set of circumstances where their is a permissive style? Therefore, could this same defense be used in other cases where "bad parenting" is to blame?
43066
Post by: feeder
I just want to know how I can catch this "affluenza". I'm so sick of all this "brokeitis" that is going around.
|
|
