For myself, I think drunk drivers should be treated in the same fashion as someone who gets charged with brandishing or causing harm with a gun.
From CNN
"Ethan Couch got 10 years probation, no jail time, for a fatal drunken driving crash
Video allegedly showed him at a party; his probation officer hasn't been able to find him
The father of a boy injured by Couch says there has been "no accountability"
(CNN)Disgusted, yes. Shocked, no.
That's what Kevin McConnell feels after learning that Ethan Couch -- the teenager who killed four people and injured several others, including McConnell's then 12-year-old son Lucas, while driving drunk on a Texas road -- is on the lam. In the McConnells' view, Couch was never held accountable. Not meeting with his probation officer and fleeing to points unknown, McConnell says, goes along with that.
"No surprises at all; there was a pattern," Kevin McConnell said Friday. "Nothing is going to make an impact on this guy unless there's something severe or certain."
That's why, in his victim impact statement in court in 2013, Lucas McConnell told Couch, "While I think we should do our best at forgiving, I believe if this situation is not handled with severity, you won't take it seriously."
Couch's lawyers had argued that the teen's parents deserved much of the blame. They even called a psychologist who testified that Couch, who was 16 at the time, suffered from "affluenza" -- meaning he was a rich kid whose parents didn't set limits for him.
Tarrant County Juvenile Court Judge Jean Boyd decided against a long prison term, instead giving him 10 years probation and mandating that he get treatment. And instantly, there was outrage: How could someone kill and then avoid jail partly because he was spoiled? Would others who weren't as wealthy have gotten the same treatment? And what confidence should anyone have that Couch or, for that matter, the parents who'd enabled him, will change?
While he thinks Couch's fleeing -- with his mother, authorities believe -- jives with his character, Kevin McConnell still has a hard time understanding why a stiffer punishment wasn't doled out.
"The scales (of justice) represent balance: There should be no entitling one way or the other, based on who you are or where you're from," McConnell told CNN's "New Day.
"It's hard for me to reconcile with my son or my other two sons... There's no accountability."
Lawyer: Judge 'gave someone a chance'
On the night of June 15, 2013, Couch and some friends stole beer from a Walmart. They started drinking and then hit the road, with Couch behind the wheel.
That same evening, Hollie Boyles and her daughter Shelby left their home to help Breanna Mitchell, whose SUV had broken down by the side of a road. Brian Jennings, a youth pastor, was driving past and also stopped to help.
Victim: 'Affluenza' boy never apologized
Victim: 'Affluenza' boy never apologized 02:40
Couch plowed into them, killing them all. Several others suffered severe injuries, including two passengers thrown from the bed of Couch's truck.
Three hours after the crash, tests showed that he had a blood-alcohol content of 0.24, three times the legal limit.
The question, then, wasn't what Couch had done. It was what should be done with him next.
The "affluenza" testimony made national headlines, as did the Tarrant County judge's ruling to give Couch probation rather than the 20 years behind bars requested by prosecutors. The teen was also ordered into long-term mental health treatment, away from his parents' influence.
"It's clear that she gave someone a chance that didn't deserve it," Todd Clement, a lawyer who represents Boyles and McConnell, said of the now retired judge. "And (that is) exactly what Lucas McConnell predicted."
Lawyer blasts media for 'affluenza' focus
Video reportedly shows teen at party
Move forward two years. Couch, now 18, is back living with his mother. And a video turns up on social media showing Couch at a party playing beer pong, as reported by CNN affiliate KTVT, despite explicit instructions he stay away from alcohol.
When asked to confirm Couch's attendance at the event, his attorneys Scott Brown and William Reagan Wynn told CNN's sister network HLN they knew authorities were investigating whether their client violated his probation conditions.
Sheriff to Ethan Couch: We are going to find you
Sheriff to Ethan Couch: We are going to find you 02:09
"It would not be prudent for us to make any further statement on Ethan's behalf until the investigations are concluded and it is determined what, if any, action will be taken against him," the lawyers added.
At the time of his conviction, prosecutors said Couch could be incarcerated up to 10 years for violating his probation terms.
Joey Jackson, a criminal defense attorney and CNN legal analyst, thinks Couch's lawyers might have had some success explaining the party video. Still, the fact the teen is now missing undermines any such argument and underscores others' point that he's never taken responsibility or paid the price.
"You're given that opportunity, now take that opportunity as a second chance of a lease on your life because you took others'," Jackson said. "... It doesn't help to be on the lam, at all."
Sheriff worries teen, mother may have fled U.S.
In order to be punished, of course, Couch first must be found.
A warrant was issued for Couch after his probation officer couldn't reach him this week. Since then, the FBI and U.S. Marshals have joined local authorities to hunt him down. A $5,000 reward was offered for information leading to the arrest of Couch.
In an interview Thursday with CNN's "AC360," Tarrant County Sheriff Dee Anderson worried that the teen and his mother could have fled the United States.
"They have the money. They have the ability to disappear," he said. "And I'm fearing that they have gone a long way and may even be out of the country."
Jackson believes the family's considerable financial resources, and the prospect that an escape had been planned out, suggests "it may be a long time" before Couch is apprehended. Still, he thinks it will happen, as does fellow criminal defense lawyer and CNN analyst Danny Cevallos.
"This is not somebody who is going to be able to just slip into the corn, like 'Field of Dreams,'" Cevallos said. "He is somebody who is going to leave a (digital) trail. He's got friends. He's not a survivalist. He should be found eventually."
In the meantime, Couch's disappearance means more heartache for the families of those he killed and fuels their belief, and that of others, that he should have gotten a stiffer sentence.
"'Affluenza' aside, Ethan Couch appears to show blatant disregard for the law, and he must be held accountable," said Sheehey-Church, the head of Mothers Against Drunk Driving.
"The families impacted will never have their loved ones back; Ethan Couch must have consequences for his actions."
CNN's Ashley Fantz, Ben Brumfield, Catherine E. Shoichet, Ray Sanchez, John Berman, Jason Morris and Dana Ford contributed to this report.
I think Affluenza is a real thing. It's just that we used to call it something else; being a snotty, self-entitled, spoiled rich kid. And well, when has that ever been an excuse for anything?
LordofHats wrote: I think Affluenza is a real thing. It's just that we used to call it something else; being a snotty, self-entitled, spoiled rich kid. And well, when has that ever been an excuse for anything?
I'm with you on that thought, but unfortunately, in that judges court it was.
LordofHats wrote: I think Affluenza is a real thing. It's just that we used to call it something else; being a snotty, self-entitled, spoiled rich kid. And well, when has that ever been an excuse for anything?
You're underselling it. I'd call it a synonym for "failed human being." Alas, having him put down and telling the parents not to fail so hard next time is not considered an appropriate response when someone so thoroughly demonstrates their contempt for innocent people as he did.
This case reminds me of the opening of the Godfather novel where the judge lets the rapist of an undertakers daughter off because they came from good families.
It's too bad such cases don't stay on the pages of fiction.
Well at least he will be getting the book thrown at him now.
I have never understood why people who cause death by dangerous/drunken driving aren't punished more heavily.
There was an incident at home where someone killed 3 out of 4 members from a family of tourists by mounting the pavement while drunk yet he only received a 10 year prison term, although he was out in 7.
The worst accident involving a drunk I know of is one that made a blip in the news of the time and quickly vanished. The man responsible got ten years for killing 27 people:
I never understood how you could have a violent offense like this and serve so little time but a nonviolent offense like selling marijuana can get you life.
Dreadwinter wrote: I never understood how you could have a violent offense like this and serve so little time but a nonviolent offense like selling marijuana can get you life.
It makes absolutely no sense.
Maybe it's because of all the killing (cartels and such to the numbers of tens of thousands a year in Mexico alone) that might go on to get the marijuana to the buyers. On the other hand, it could be just a relic of the failed war on drugs.
Maybe it's because of all the killing (cartels and such to the numbers of tens of thousands a year in Mexico alone) that might go on to get the marijuana to the buyers. On the other hand, it could be just a relic of the failed war on drugs.
Mostly the latter, because we're totally fine with all the death and exploitation the coffee and cacao industries create.
I hope this kid is found and is given the proper treatment a multiple homicide perpatrator deserves for being such a Please don't bypass the language filters like this.
Reds8n
Maybe it's because of all the killing (cartels and such to the numbers of tens of thousands a year in Mexico alone) that might go on to get the marijuana to the buyers. On the other hand, it could be just a relic of the failed war on drugs.
Mostly the latter, because we're totally fine with all the death and exploitation the coffee and cacao industries create.
Dreadwinter wrote: I never understood how you could have a violent offense like this and serve so little time but a nonviolent offense like selling marijuana can get you life.
It makes absolutely no sense.
Maybe it's because of all the killing (cartels and such to the numbers of tens of thousands a year in Mexico alone) that might go on to get the marijuana to the buyers. On the other hand, it could be just a relic of the failed war on drugs.
It was entirely the failed War on Drugs that built the cartels. If it was legal and everybody could grow it, why would we want to import it?
jhe90 wrote: Throw the book at them, jail time, no luxury.
You kill people, there is consequences.... No exceptions
He and his worthless mother should each serve a sentence based on the lost life expectancy of his victims. I don't care if it adds up to something stupid like 150-170+ years. He obviously doesn't give a flying rodent gak about killing four innocent people, and his mother is now helping a felon flee criminal prosecution.
And then liquidate his parent's entire holdings and pay it out as restitution to the real victims and the families affected for life by this little piece of gak's self-entitled rank stupidity.
jhe90 wrote: Throw the book at them, jail time, no luxury.
You kill people, there is consequences.... No exceptions
He and his worthless mother should each serve a sentence based on the lost life expectancy of his victims. I don't care if it adds up to something stupid like 150-170+ years. He obviously doesn't give a flying rodent gak about killing four innocent people, and his mother is now helping a felon flee criminal prosecution.
And then liquidate his parent's entire holdings and pay it out as restitution to the real victims and the families affected for life by this little piece of gak's self-entitled rank stupidity.
She is aiding and abetting s fugitive wanted basically for murder, that's worth jail time.
He learned zilch, full jail, full sentence for the crime. Hard labour in Alaska not hurt....
Why did they not have a watch on her accounts, passport and such. Nothing nsa, just a alarm if x happens....
I hate to break up all the "tough on crime" boasting, but there's actually a legitimate case buried in there somewhere. It's a well-established precedent that we treat children and adults differently in court because a child does not have the mental capacity to be fully responsible for their actions. If a 5 year old shoots someone and kills them we don't execute them for murder, we focus on punishing the parents for giving them access to a gun. So perhaps there's a valid argument in saying "your parents have failed so spectacularly in teaching you anything that we have to treat you as a small child". And the real injustice is less that the 16 year old with the maturity of a 5 year old was given a light punishment and more that the parents were not held accountable for raising him that poorly.
Parents aren't the only determining factor in the behaviour of their off-spring, though.
There is a vast amount of social information that tells any 16-year-old who isn't actually insane or severely sub-normal, that getting drunk and driving is wrong.
Kilkrazy wrote: Parents aren't the only determining factor in the behaviour of their off-spring, though.
There is a vast amount of social information that tells any 16-year-old who isn't actually insane or severely sub-normal, that getting drunk and driving is wrong.
There are also any number of cases where parents did the best they could and the child still goes off the tracks. This is definitely not one of them. That being said, as you point out, the child was 16 and had access to enough information that he knew what could happen. The mother compounded the situation by enabling her child to continue bad behavior.
Kilkrazy wrote: Parents aren't the only determining factor in the behaviour of their off-spring, though.
There is a vast amount of social information that tells any 16-year-old who isn't actually insane or severely sub-normal, that getting drunk and driving is wrong.
They knew exactly what they did was wrong. Rich or not, you do not drink and drive. Killing people, you have to answer for that.
Peregrine wrote: I hate to break up all the "tough on crime" boasting, but there's actually a legitimate case buried in there somewhere. It's a well-established precedent that we treat children and adults differently in court because a child does not have the mental capacity to be fully responsible for their actions. If a 5 year old shoots someone and kills them we don't execute them for murder, we focus on punishing the parents for giving them access to a gun. So perhaps there's a valid argument in saying "your parents have failed so spectacularly in teaching you anything that we have to treat you as a small child". And the real injustice is less that the 16 year old with the maturity of a 5 year old was given a light punishment and more that the parents were not held accountable for raising him that poorly.
He was 16 and had a drivers license. He knew full well that drinking and driving is bad because that is hammered in to young drivers. On top of that, the whole thing started off with him stealing the beer he drank.
I have a hard time believing that at some point during all of this he didn't think "I could hurt somebody and really get in trouble for this"
I can understand the laxity of the original sentence based on his age; but the fines levied on him should have been so goddamned high that he and his parents wouldn't have had to worry about affluenza for a good long while.
Dreadwinter wrote: He was 16 and had a drivers license. He knew full well that drinking and driving is bad because that is hammered in to young drivers. On top of that, the whole thing started off with him stealing the beer he drank.
I have a hard time believing that at some point during all of this he didn't think "I could hurt somebody and really get in trouble for this"
Sure, someone told him, but how much of that was countered by his parents? Were his parents busy saying "don't worry about any of that, if you get into trouble call our lawyer first and he will fix everything" while quietly ignoring his drinking?
Also, getting a driver's license is hardly a major accomplishment. It just takes a 15-minute written test (which is easy enough that most people who have ever been in a car could probably pass it without even trying) and a quick "turn left, 3-point turn, turn right, park the car and pick up your shiny new license" practical test. I'm sure someone said "don't drink and drive" as part of that, but nowhere in the licensing process is there a thorough attempt to make people learn the things they're told. I have no doubt that someone who is used to being entitled to everything, encouraged by their parents, could get through it without ever really learning that lesson.
Dreadwinter wrote: He was 16 and had a drivers license. He knew full well that drinking and driving is bad because that is hammered in to young drivers. On top of that, the whole thing started off with him stealing the beer he drank.
I have a hard time believing that at some point during all of this he didn't think "I could hurt somebody and really get in trouble for this"
Sure, someone told him, but how much of that was countered by his parents? Were his parents busy saying "don't worry about any of that, if you get into trouble call our lawyer first and he will fix everything" while quietly ignoring his drinking?
Also, getting a driver's license is hardly a major accomplishment. It just takes a 15-minute written test (which is easy enough that most people who have ever been in a car could probably pass it without even trying) and a quick "turn left, 3-point turn, turn right, park the car and pick up your shiny new license" practical test. I'm sure someone said "don't drink and drive" as part of that, but nowhere in the licensing process is there a thorough attempt to make people learn the things they're told. I have no doubt that someone who is used to being entitled to everything, encouraged by their parents, could get through it without ever really learning that lesson.
Gonna have you disagree with you on the second part. Having had to take a class and numerous tests to pass it in order to get my drivers license.
Dreadwinter wrote: Gonna have you disagree with you on the second part. Having had to take a class and numerous tests to pass it in order to get my drivers license.
Maybe you're the rare exception. Getting mine was an absolute joke.
Dreadwinter wrote: Gonna have you disagree with you on the second part. Having had to take a class and numerous tests to pass it in order to get my drivers license.
Maybe you're the rare exception. Getting mine was an absolute joke.
I have never understood why people who cause death by dangerous/drunken driving aren't punished more heavily.
There was an incident at home where someone killed 3 out of 4 members from a family of tourists by mounting the pavement while drunk yet he only received a 10 year prison term, although he was out in 7.
no he won't. there is a law for the rich and a law for us. as long as th rich do not hurt other rich its ok.
I have never understood why people who cause death by dangerous/drunken driving aren't punished more heavily.
There was an incident at home where someone killed 3 out of 4 members from a family of tourists by mounting the pavement while drunk yet he only received a 10 year prison term, although he was out in 7.
no he won't. there is a law for the rich and a law for us. as long as th rich do not hurt other rich its ok.
The guy that killed 27 people only got ten years, and he was just a Joe Blow.
Relapse wrote: Maybe it's because of all the killing (cartels and such to the numbers of tens of thousands a year in Mexico alone) that might go on to get the marijuana to the buyers. On the other hand, it could be just a relic of the failed war on drugs.
It was entirely the failed War on Drugs that built the cartels. If it was legal and everybody could grow it, why would we want to import it?
Marijuana is a special case due to the relative ease of preparation. Even in countries where alcohol is legal you still get criminals cutting their product with methanol, methamphetamine production famously risks causing fires or explosions, and amateur production of desomorphine produces a drug with the small side effect of rotting the flesh from your bones.
I still don't want smoking marijuana to ever be legal, but apart from the jackasses who turn their mind-altering substances into an aerosol it's not an inherently problematic drug the way heroin or methamphetamines are.
Regardless of smokers, the person involved is basically someone who has learned nothing, has no respect for law that was so lenient and family think they can do as they please. Parole terms are well, solid lines you do not cross, not just some joke to ignore
jhe90 wrote: Regardless of smokers, the person involved is basically someone who has learned nothing, has no respect for law that was so lenient and family think they can do as they please. Parole terms are well, solid lines you do not cross, not just some joke to ignore
Go feth them all, there both idiots.
I am thinking with such a set of social skills, they should soon come to light. I don't seriously think they have or will find any friends that are either intelligent enough to keep shut about them, or they'll just outright piss people they are trying to hide among off with their arrogance.
It actually wouldn't surprise me if they were found dead, either by murder or suicide.
They should sent him to the most hardcore prison there is, tell the populace he murdered 12 people, including children and then forget to leave the cellz locked
hotsauceman1 wrote: They should sent him to the most hardcore prison there is, tell the populace he murdered 12 people, including children and then forget to leave the cellz locked
RAR IM SO TOUGH ON CRIME KILL THEM ALL AND LET GOD KILL THEM AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Did this kid really get away with murdering several people, essentially because he is rich....
There is the recent case of the Saudi exec who beat a rape charge by saying he tripped on his way through the living room to the bathroom and accidently penetrated a girl who was sleeping on a couch.
Dreadwinter wrote: I never understood how you could have a violent offense like this and serve so little time but a nonviolent offense like selling marijuana can get you life.
It makes absolutely no sense.
Because it was an accident. A young kid who kills several people in a car accident (manslaughter) with no priors will get a very minor punishment- as he or she should, it's an accident. But the drinking on top of it is when I begin to question the judge's decision.
Dreadwinter wrote: I never understood how you could have a violent offense like this and serve so little time but a nonviolent offense like selling marijuana can get you life.
It makes absolutely no sense.
Because it was an accident. A young kid who kills several people in a car accident (manslaughter) with no priors will get a very minor punishment- as he or she should, it's an accident. But the drinking on top of it is when I begin to question the judge's decision.
Once you add alcohol it goes from accident to you made a choice, a choice making unfit to drive and thus culpable.
Indeed. Accidents are what happen when some factor beyond your control causes your driving to go wrong, for example, if a tyre burst at legitimate high speed on the motorway, or a deer jumped in front of you on a country road, which causes you to swerve and hit someone on the side of the road.
In other circumstances, so-called accidents arise from negligence or mistakes by the driver. Speeding, driving under the influence, not looking where you are going, not signalling properly, and so on.
Dreadwinter wrote: He was 16 and had a drivers license. He knew full well that drinking and driving is bad because that is hammered in to young drivers. On top of that, the whole thing started off with him stealing the beer he drank.
I have a hard time believing that at some point during all of this he didn't think "I could hurt somebody and really get in trouble for this"
Sure, someone told him, but how much of that was countered by his parents? Were his parents busy saying "don't worry about any of that, if you get into trouble call our lawyer first and he will fix everything" while quietly ignoring his drinking?
Also, getting a driver's license is hardly a major accomplishment. It just takes a 15-minute written test (which is easy enough that most people who have ever been in a car could probably pass it without even trying) and a quick "turn left, 3-point turn, turn right, park the car and pick up your shiny new license" practical test. I'm sure someone said "don't drink and drive" as part of that, but nowhere in the licensing process is there a thorough attempt to make people learn the things they're told. I have no doubt that someone who is used to being entitled to everything, encouraged by their parents, could get through it without ever really learning that lesson.
Maryland requires classes and a significant amount of practical time behind the wheel. Plus, the not drinking and driving was hammered in all the time.
Same judge sentenced a 14 year old kid to 10 years for killing someone with a punch.
Maybe there is a decent argument to be made that we should change how we deal with young offenders, but what disgusts people about this case is the total inconsistency, apparently purely based on the perpetrator's income level.
Same judge sentenced a 14 year old kid to 10 years for killing someone with a punch.
Maybe there is a decent argument to be made that we should change how we deal with young offenders, but what disgusts people about this case is the total inconsistency, apparently purely based on the perpetrator's income level.
It's tangentially the income level. The kid with money can afford a great lawyer; the 14 year old might not have been as able to find good representation.
Meh, juvenile "justice" in Texas is pretty much a joke unless they get certified as an adult, which is generally only done in aggravated robberies, capital murders, etc. Usually it's just probation because the goal is rehabilitation.
Judge made a bad call in this one and now it's showing. Should have sent him to TJJD.
Same judge sentenced a 14 year old kid to 10 years for killing someone with a punch.
Maybe there is a decent argument to be made that we should change how we deal with young offenders, but what disgusts people about this case is the total inconsistency, apparently purely based on the perpetrator's income level.
Same judge sentenced a 14 year old kid to 10 years for killing someone with a punch.
Maybe there is a decent argument to be made that we should change how we deal with young offenders, but what disgusts people about this case is the total inconsistency, apparently purely based on the perpetrator's income level.
Same judge sentenced a 14 year old kid to 10 years for killing someone with a punch.
Maybe there is a decent argument to be made that we should change how we deal with young offenders, but what disgusts people about this case is the total inconsistency, apparently purely based on the perpetrator's income level.
Either this or racial bias.
No matter the reason, it is disgusting.
Very clear hostile intent though and there's a clear link from the act to the victins death.
He did kill that person, it may have been days later but the fact us that act caused the event.
Same judge sentenced a 14 year old kid to 10 years for killing someone with a punch.
Maybe there is a decent argument to be made that we should change how we deal with young offenders, but what disgusts people about this case is the total inconsistency, apparently purely based on the perpetrator's income level.
Either this or racial bias.
No matter the reason, it is disgusting.
Very clear hostile intent though and there's a clear link from the act to the victins death.
He did kill that person, it may have been days later but the fact us that act caused the event.
They sound like a thug of the worst kind
If people consider drinking and driving an accident, how do they not consider what happened with the 14 year old an accident?
Torga_DW wrote: For one, the intent is different. One is a planned act of hostility, the other is a side-effect of doing something stupid (drink driving).
Really? Did he intend to kill the kid who accidentally hit his head on the pavement after a punch?
Torga_DW wrote: For one, the intent is different. One is a planned act of hostility, the other is a side-effect of doing something stupid (drink driving).
Really? Did he intend to kill the kid who accidentally hit his head on the pavement after a punch?
Accidents happen man.
Yeah your up to good intent when you punch them in the head. He killed him good as, if he was not punching the victim they would be alive.
Actions have concquences. As a result if his act, someone died. That is serious.
Torga_DW wrote: For one, the intent is different. One is a planned act of hostility, the other is a side-effect of doing something stupid (drink driving).
Really? Did he intend to kill the kid who accidentally hit his head on the pavement after a punch?
Accidents happen man.
He intended to cause him harm, and then bad things happened. The drunk driver intended to drive his car, and then bad things happened. Yeah accidents do happen, that's why judges look at intent. I'm not excusing the affluenza guy here, just explaining why there's a difference in the sentences.
Torga_DW wrote: For one, the intent is different. One is a planned act of hostility, the other is a side-effect of doing something stupid (drink driving).
Really? Did he intend to kill the kid who accidentally hit his head on the pavement after a punch?
Accidents happen man.
Yeah your up to good intent when you punch them in the head. He killed him good as, if he was not punching the victim they would be alive.
Actions have concquences. As a result if his act, someone died. That is serious.
As it turns out, the same thing happened in the case of the drunk driver. Lets look at intent. What was the kids intent? His intent was to break the law by first stealing alcohol, then drinking it(under aged), then driving while under the influence. His intent was to break the law that was set in place to save lives.
But instead of killing one person, he killed 4 people. However, he was given a highly reduced sentence here. I am not saying the kid who punched another was not at fault. He did something he shouldn't have. But the fact that he was not given an option of rehabilitation and probation like the 16 year old was, is a clear sign of bias.
Torga_DW wrote: For one, the intent is different. One is a planned act of hostility, the other is a side-effect of doing something stupid (drink driving).
Really? Did he intend to kill the kid who accidentally hit his head on the pavement after a punch?
Accidents happen man.
Yeah your up to good intent when you punch them in the head. He killed him good as, if he was not punching the victim they would be alive.
Actions have concquences. As a result if his act, someone died. That is serious.
As it turns out, the same thing happened in the case of the drunk driver. Lets look at intent. What was the kids intent? His intent was to break the law by first stealing alcohol, then drinking it(under aged), then driving while under the influence. His intent was to break the law that was set in place to save lives.
But instead of killing one person, he killed 4 people. However, he was given a highly reduced sentence here. I am not saying the kid who punched another was not at fault. He did something he shouldn't have. But the fact that he was not given an option of rehabilitation and probation like the 16 year old was, is a clear sign of bias.
Article listed why. It was rather good on detail.
Due to violent offence, rehabilitation places did not want to take him.
Says in article mother tried, but the programs chose not to admit him.
Say what you will, but they must have been spooked or thought he was too much if a risk?
Torga_DW wrote: For one, the intent is different. One is a planned act of hostility, the other is a side-effect of doing something stupid (drink driving).
Really? Did he intend to kill the kid who accidentally hit his head on the pavement after a punch?
Accidents happen man.
He intended to cause him harm, and then bad things happened. The drunk driver intended to drive his car, and then bad things happened. Yeah accidents do happen, that's why judges look at intent. I'm not excusing the affluenza guy here, just explaining why there's a difference in the sentences.
This argument was dismissed legally in the 1920s. It was recognised that getting drunk was not a valid excuse for doing stupid things afterwards because you hadn't intended to but the drink led you to it.
Torga_DW wrote: For one, the intent is different. One is a planned act of hostility, the other is a side-effect of doing something stupid (drink driving).
Really? Did he intend to kill the kid who accidentally hit his head on the pavement after a punch?
Accidents happen man.
Yeah your up to good intent when you punch them in the head. He killed him good as, if he was not punching the victim they would be alive.
Actions have concquences. As a result if his act, someone died. That is serious.
As it turns out, the same thing happened in the case of the drunk driver. Lets look at intent. What was the kids intent? His intent was to break the law by first stealing alcohol, then drinking it(under aged), then driving while under the influence. His intent was to break the law that was set in place to save lives.
But instead of killing one person, he killed 4 people. However, he was given a highly reduced sentence here. I am not saying the kid who punched another was not at fault. He did something he shouldn't have. But the fact that he was not given an option of rehabilitation and probation like the 16 year old was, is a clear sign of bias.
Article listed why. It was rather good on detail.
Due to violent offence, rehabilitation places did not want to take him.
Says in article mother tried, but the programs chose not to admit him.
Say what you will, but they must have been spooked or thought he was too much if a risk?
Having worked in a facility for rehabilitating the mentally ill back in to the community, I worked with people who were much more violent than the 14 year old. I find it hard to believe that not a single facility would take him. He was not even close to too much of a risk.
Torga_DW wrote: For one, the intent is different. One is a planned act of hostility, the other is a side-effect of doing something stupid (drink driving).
Really? Did he intend to kill the kid who accidentally hit his head on the pavement after a punch?
Accidents happen man.
Yeah your up to good intent when you punch them in the head. He killed him good as, if he was not punching the victim they would be alive.
Actions have concquences. As a result if his act, someone died. That is serious.
As it turns out, the same thing happened in the case of the drunk driver. Lets look at intent. What was the kids intent? His intent was to break the law by first stealing alcohol, then drinking it(under aged), then driving while under the influence. His intent was to break the law that was set in place to save lives.
But instead of killing one person, he killed 4 people. However, he was given a highly reduced sentence here. I am not saying the kid who punched another was not at fault. He did something he shouldn't have. But the fact that he was not given an option of rehabilitation and probation like the 16 year old was, is a clear sign of bias.
Article listed why. It was rather good on detail.
Due to violent offence, rehabilitation places did not want to take him.
Says in article mother tried, but the programs chose not to admit him.
Say what you will, but they must have been spooked or thought he was too much if a risk?
Having worked in a facility for rehabilitating the mentally ill back in to the community, I worked with people who were much more violent than the 14 year old. I find it hard to believe that not a single facility would take him. He was not even close to too much of a risk.
Well from article, they chose not too. Could not go free without treatment and such so only one option left, jail system.
No full case details so not sure what it was, be a reason somewhere out there.
Torga_DW wrote: For one, the intent is different. One is a planned act of hostility, the other is a side-effect of doing something stupid (drink driving).
Really? Did he intend to kill the kid who accidentally hit his head on the pavement after a punch?
Accidents happen man.
He intended to cause him harm, and then bad things happened. The drunk driver intended to drive his car, and then bad things happened. Yeah accidents do happen, that's why judges look at intent. I'm not excusing the affluenza guy here, just explaining why there's a difference in the sentences.
This argument was dismissed legally in the 1920s. It was recognised that getting drunk was not a valid excuse for doing stupid things afterwards because you hadn't intended to but the drink led you to it.
And nor should it be an excuse. But he didn't sit down in his car and decide to run over people, he had a vehicular accident and people died. Intent is the difference between a murder charge and a manslaughter charge, it can be fairly significant. From what i can tell, he did get convicted he just got extremely lucky with a second chance during sentencing, and then blew it. Something tells me the prosecutor may get his 20 years after all.
As to the other boy, it would be interesting to know why the programs refused to accept him, but he did have a potential out. Did he show remorse? Most mental health programs won't accept someone who doesn't show willingness to participate. Did he have a prior record (not necessarily convictions, more 'was he doing things that were known about'? More info is needed. What i'm getting from this judge is that he was giving people chances - one wasn't able to take advantage of it, and the other one blew it.
Torga_DW wrote: For one, the intent is different. One is a planned act of hostility, the other is a side-effect of doing something stupid (drink driving).
Really? Did he intend to kill the kid who accidentally hit his head on the pavement after a punch?
Accidents happen man.
He intended to cause him harm, and then bad things happened. The drunk driver intended to drive his car, and then bad things happened. Yeah accidents do happen, that's why judges look at intent. I'm not excusing the affluenza guy here, just explaining why there's a difference in the sentences.
This argument was dismissed legally in the 1920s. It was recognised that getting drunk was not a valid excuse for doing stupid things afterwards because you hadn't intended to but the drink led you to it.
Exactly. People drink to get an effect, knowing full well the things that can possibly happen if too much is consumed. This kid chose to gamble with people's lives and they lost, same as the puncher. Both should be locked away for several years.
The really interesting this about this is that I think it's very unlikely he would have been in any significant trouble for the beer pong video, whereas now that he has fled, if he gets caught he's looking at 10 years from a judge disinclined to cut any slack whatsoever.
There is no doubt if he is caught now that the judge will not want to appear to be lenient. Too much media attention and contrasts with poor black kids getting far worse punishments for similar crimes.
(CNN)
Mexican authorities have detained so-called "affluenza" teen Ethan Couch and his mother near the popular Mexican Pacific beach resort town of Puerto Vallarta, officials briefed on the matter told CNN.
Couch went missing earlier this month, two years after he made national news when he was sentenced to probation for a drunken driving crash that killed four people.
Couch is expected to be turned over to U.S. Marshals, who have spent weeks searching for him.
He is wanted by authorities in Tarrant County, Texas, for allegedly violating probation. His mother was listed by Texas authorities as a missing person after her son's disappearance, and the authorities said they believed she was assisting her son.
Ouze wrote: Surprised Mexico - the US has an extradition treaty with Mexico.
I don't figure they're a very bright pair. Add in a probable lack of social skill and they likely didn't have any place else they could think to run to.
Yeah, typically the people who successfully hide in Mexico can blend in with the locals. Rich Gringo idiots who were probably publicly staying in a hotel would get caught quickly.
Grey Templar wrote: Yeah, typically the people who successfully hide in Mexico can blend in with the locals. Rich Gringo idiots who were probably publicly staying in a hotel would get caught quickly.
Well, if they didn't even consider that there's an extradition treaty or that Mexican authorities might look for them (and are actually quite competent btw) I'd guess they belong in the second category you described. It's not like the drug trade (to the US) and weapons trade (to Mexico) would mean authorities have any need to identify gringos throwing money around, no way.
As for the rest, a single punch can cause permanent damage or even kill. Striking someone means you have either accepted that risk or lost your cool, not stopping to consider any consequences. Both mean you're a dangerous person. You could ofc also be drunk and kill someone accidentally or otherwise - it's still no excuse. The difference is that while drunk driving is a crime and no excuse it's still not driving with the intent to kill. Usually.
Grey Templar wrote: Yeah, typically the people who successfully hide in Mexico can blend in with the locals. Rich Gringo idiots who were probably publicly staying in a hotel would get caught quickly.
Well, if they didn't even consider that there's an extradition treaty or that Mexican authorities might look for them (and are actually quite competent btw) I'd guess they belong in the second category you described. It's not like the drug trade (to the US) and weapons trade (to Mexico) would mean authorities have any need to identify gringos throwing money around, no way.
As for the rest, a single punch can cause permanent damage or even kill. Striking someone means you have either accepted that risk or lost your cool, not stopping to consider any consequences. Both mean you're a dangerous person. You could ofc also be drunk and kill someone accidentally or otherwise - it's still no excuse. The difference is that while drunk driving is a crime and no excuse it's still not driving with the intent to kill. Usually.
Only because our drunk driving laws are ancient and in glaring need of updating to modern times.
It's not like drunk driving is something new, or something who's consequences have only recently begun to be fully understood like the current issues surrounding concussions.
Drunk driving & its consequences have been front and center in the public spotlight for decades now. Thousands and thousands of hours of awareness campaigns, graphic videos that explicitly show the end results of crashes caused by impaired drivers, police & EMS education about how even a single drink can drastically effect one's motor skills, etc...
Really, in this day and age, drunk driving should be no different than standard Manslaughter. When you drive drunk, you are purposefully making an incredibly selfish and stupid decision. If you kill another person(s) because of your moronic sense of self entitlement, (ie: it's my right to drive no matter what), then your sorry arse should be locked away for a very long time.
No more of this vehicular manslaughter BS.
Drunk driving/distracted driving is easily the 100% most preventable crime there is.
Being selfish & stupid should not entitle you to a lesser sentence, just because you lost control of a vehicle and butchered innocents, instead of say, drunkenly punching someone in the head who then dies of a brain injury due to the punch/falling & hitting their head.
If this comes off as harsh, well, I've had friends who've lost a family member to a drunk driver. It's horrible trying to deal with the senseless stupidity of that kind of loss, and then seeing the stupid pile of gak get slapped with maybe 2-4 years of prison time/probation.
There's a difference between killing someone by punching them in the face on purpose and killing someone by mistake because you were stupid. Presumably the drunk driver doesn't drive drunk in order to kill people.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: There's a difference between killing someone by punching them in the face on purpose and killing someone by mistake because you were stupid. Presumably the drunk driver doesn't drive drunk in order to kill people.
Nonsense. If I drink and wave a chainsaw around I'm getting manslaughter. Same with a vehicle. By getting drinking and driving you are intentionally performing an act with wanton disregard for human life. Its the classic definition.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: There's a difference between killing someone by punching them in the face on purpose and killing someone by mistake because you were stupid. Presumably the drunk driver doesn't drive drunk in order to kill people.
Nonsense. If I drink and wave a chainsaw around I'm getting manslaughter. Same with a vehicle. By getting drinking and driving you are intentionally performing an act with wanton disregard for human life. Its the classic definition.
As a driver his act was negligent to public saftey.
Simple, skidding on black ice while at sensible speed would be different.
Driving while impaired is negligent and places guilt on negligent party, aka the teen.
Dreadwinter wrote: He was 16 and had a drivers license. He knew full well that drinking and driving is bad because that is hammered in to young drivers. On top of that, the whole thing started off with him stealing the beer he drank.
I have a hard time believing that at some point during all of this he didn't think "I could hurt somebody and really get in trouble for this"
Sure, someone told him, but how much of that was countered by his parents? Were his parents busy saying "don't worry about any of that, if you get into trouble call our lawyer first and he will fix everything" while quietly ignoring his drinking?
Also, getting a driver's license is hardly a major accomplishment. It just takes a 15-minute written test (which is easy enough that most people who have ever been in a car could probably pass it without even trying) and a quick "turn left, 3-point turn, turn right, park the car and pick up your shiny new license" practical test. I'm sure someone said "don't drink and drive" as part of that, but nowhere in the licensing process is there a thorough attempt to make people learn the things they're told. I have no doubt that someone who is used to being entitled to everything, encouraged by their parents, could get through it without ever really learning that lesson.
Maryland requires classes and a significant amount of practical time behind the wheel. Plus, the not drinking and driving was hammered in all the time.
Just so we're clear, in most states the requirement of classes and practical time is generally something required for anyone under 16 attempting to get a driver's permit. Over 16 or 17, you can just attempt to get your license without having had a permit.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: There's a difference between killing someone by punching them in the face on purpose and killing someone by mistake because you were stupid. Presumably the drunk driver doesn't drive drunk in order to kill people.
Nonsense. If I drink and wave a chainsaw around I'm getting manslaughter. Same with a vehicle. By getting drinking and driving you are intentionally performing an act with wanton disregard for human life. Its the classic definition.
Where I live, being drunk while killing someone with a car will earn you a harsher sentence.
But being drunk while killing someone with a chainsaw will earn you a more lenient sentence because, except while driving, being drunk is a mitigating circumstance
Its a likely a more lenient sentence vs. intentional murder. If it were an accident, say you were a Canadian, riding a galloping moose down the street with a chainsaw and a Molson you would still be charged more than if you were just rgalloping down the street with a chainsaw.*
*Note in Western Canada, Canadians have the option of a passport, birth certificate, or riding in on a moose with a Molson as valid forms of ID to re-enter Canada from the US.
No, our courts have a huge boner for "temporary reduced mental faculty". You can literally shave half off your sentence if you take a big swig before executing a pre-planned murder.
Grey Templar wrote: Yeah, typically the people who successfully hide in Mexico can blend in with the locals. Rich Gringo idiots who were probably publicly staying in a hotel would get caught quickly.
Well, if they didn't even consider that there's an extradition treaty or that Mexican authorities might look for them (and are actually quite competent btw) I'd guess they belong in the second category you described. It's not like the drug trade (to the US) and weapons trade (to Mexico) would mean authorities have any need to identify gringos throwing money around, no way.
As for the rest, a single punch can cause permanent damage or even kill. Striking someone means you have either accepted that risk or lost your cool, not stopping to consider any consequences. Both mean you're a dangerous person. You could ofc also be drunk and kill someone accidentally or otherwise - it's still no excuse. The difference is that while drunk driving is a crime and no excuse it's still not driving with the intent to kill. Usually.
Spoiler:
Only because our drunk driving laws are ancient and in glaring need of updating to modern times.
It's not like drunk driving is something new, or something who's consequences have only recently begun to be fully understood like the current issues surrounding concussions.
Drunk driving & its consequences have been front and center in the public spotlight for decades now. Thousands and thousands of hours of awareness campaigns, graphic videos that explicitly show the end results of crashes caused by impaired drivers, police & EMS education about how even a single drink can drastically effect one's motor skills, etc...
Really, in this day and age, drunk driving should be no different than standard Manslaughter. When you drive drunk, you are purposefully making an incredibly selfish and stupid decision. If you kill another person(s) because of your moronic sense of self entitlement, (ie: it's my right to drive no matter what), then your sorry arse should be locked away for a very long time.
No more of this vehicular manslaughter BS.
Drunk driving/distracted driving is easily the 100% most preventable crime there is.
Being selfish & stupid should not entitle you to a lesser sentence, just because you lost control of a vehicle and butchered innocents, instead of say, drunkenly punching someone in the head who then dies of a brain injury due to the punch/falling & hitting their head.
If this comes off as harsh, well, I've had friends who've lost a family member to a drunk driver. It's horrible trying to deal with the senseless stupidity of that kind of loss, and then seeing the stupid pile of gak get slapped with maybe 2-4 years of prison time/probation.
I am totally with you on this. I also have a number of friends and others I know killed because of drunk driving. It's infuriating enough reading about drunk drivers killing someone, but personally seeing the aftermath really puts it to a whole new level for me.
In Canada criminal code section 255 sub-section 3:
Any "Impaired Driving Causing Death" = "life imprisonment".
It may say that in the criminal code but with this trial:
Christy Natsis found guilty of impaired driving causing death. says:
"Impaired driving causing death convictions typically carry prison sentences of between two and five years for first time offenders." Who knows, I just figure if you kill someone you should take steps to NEVER do anything like that again.
Grey Templar wrote: Yeah, typically the people who successfully hide in Mexico can blend in with the locals. Rich Gringo idiots who were probably publicly staying in a hotel would get caught quickly.
Well, if they didn't even consider that there's an extradition treaty or that Mexican authorities might look for them (and are actually quite competent btw) I'd guess they belong in the second category you described. It's not like the drug trade (to the US) and weapons trade (to Mexico) would mean authorities have any need to identify gringos throwing money around, no way.
As for the rest, a single punch can cause permanent damage or even kill. Striking someone means you have either accepted that risk or lost your cool, not stopping to consider any consequences. Both mean you're a dangerous person. You could ofc also be drunk and kill someone accidentally or otherwise - it's still no excuse. The difference is that while drunk driving is a crime and no excuse it's still not driving with the intent to kill. Usually.
Only because our drunk driving laws are ancient and in glaring need of updating to modern times.
It's not like drunk driving is something new, or something who's consequences have only recently begun to be fully understood like the current issues surrounding concussions. Drunk driving & its consequences have been front and center in the public spotlight for decades now. Thousands and thousands of hours of awareness campaigns, graphic videos that explicitly show the end results of crashes caused by impaired drivers, police & EMS education about how even a single drink can drastically effect one's motor skills, etc...
Really, in this day and age, drunk driving should be no different than standard Manslaughter. When you drive drunk, you are purposefully making an incredibly selfish and stupid decision. If you kill another person(s) because of your moronic sense of self entitlement, (ie: it's my right to drive no matter what), then your sorry arse should be locked away for a very long time. No more of this vehicular manslaughter BS.
Drunk driving/distracted driving is easily the 100% most preventable crime there is. Being selfish & stupid should not entitle you to a lesser sentence, just because you lost control of a vehicle and butchered innocents, instead of say, drunkenly punching someone in the head who then dies of a brain injury due to the punch/falling & hitting their head.
If this comes off as harsh, well, I've had friends who've lost a family member to a drunk driver. It's horrible trying to deal with the senseless stupidity of that kind of loss, and then seeing the stupid pile of gak get slapped with maybe 2-4 years of prison time/probation.
I would not agree with a murder charge against a drunk driver because I believe it is important to preserve wilful murder as a very special crime, and drunk drivers, no matter how stupid and selfish they are, do not actually set out to run over and kill people.
Having said that, the UK has a problem with persistent drunk, unlicensed and uninsured drivers continuing to drive after the law has banned them from behind the wheel. IN these cases, I believe a long custodial sentence is appropriate to save the public from the ongoing menace of such drivers. I would support the imposition of a condign sentence even if the driver didn't seriously injure someone.
Talizvar wrote: Who knows, I just figure if you kill someone you should take steps to NEVER do anything like that again.
Well, we could go back to Hammurabi's "an eye for an eye". If an engineer builds a house that collapses and kills the owner the engineer shall be put to death and all that. Oh, you say engineers usually just hide behind the company which gets to pay reparations if it even still exists when the building collapses?
Personally I'd be more for the ancient germanic/nordic weregild in cases where death wasn't the intention - someone who kills a person can get away with it if he pays the remaining family a hefty sum of money. If he doesn't want to negotiate how to pay he's declared a varg (wolf) and can be killed by any free man who does it openly.
Talizvar wrote: In Canada criminal code section 255 sub-section 3:
Any "Impaired Driving Causing Death" = "life imprisonment".
No, that isn't what it says. The phrase "liable to imprisonment for life." means that a given individual may, if convicted, may be subject to life imprisonment. It does not mean that they must be subject to life imprisonment.
Talizvar wrote: Who knows, I just figure if you kill someone you should take steps to NEVER do anything like that again.
Well, we could go back to Hammurabi's "an eye for an eye". If an engineer builds a house that collapses and kills the owner the engineer shall be put to death and all that. Oh, you say engineers usually just hide behind the company which gets to pay reparations if it even still exists when the building collapses?
Personally I'd be more for the ancient germanic/nordic weregild in cases where death wasn't the intention - someone who kills a person can get away with it if he pays the remaining family a hefty sum of money. If he doesn't want to negotiate how to pay he's declared a varg (wolf) and can be killed by any free man who does it openly.
Talizvar wrote: Who knows, I just figure if you kill someone you should take steps to NEVER do anything like that again.
Well, we could go back to Hammurabi's "an eye for an eye". If an engineer builds a house that collapses and kills the owner the engineer shall be put to death and all that. Oh, you say engineers usually just hide behind the company which gets to pay reparations if it even still exists when the building collapses?
Personally I'd be more for the ancient germanic/nordic weregild in cases where death wasn't the intention - someone who kills a person can get away with it if he pays the remaining family a hefty sum of money. If he doesn't want to negotiate how to pay he's declared a varg (wolf) and can be killed by any free man who does it openly.
We don't really need to add direct physical murder to the list of crimes the rich can pay to get out of, do we?
Talizvar wrote: Who knows, I just figure if you kill someone you should take steps to NEVER do anything like that again.
Well, we could go back to Hammurabi's "an eye for an eye". If an engineer builds a house that collapses and kills the owner the engineer shall be put to death and all that. Oh, you say engineers usually just hide behind the company which gets to pay reparations if it even still exists when the building collapses?
Personally I'd be more for the ancient germanic/nordic weregild in cases where death wasn't the intention - someone who kills a person can get away with it if he pays the remaining family a hefty sum of money. If he doesn't want to negotiate how to pay he's declared a varg (wolf) and can be killed by any free man who does it openly.
We don't really need to add direct physical murder to the list of crimes the rich can pay to get out of, do we?
So, I think we might be getting this wrong.
Me and my friend looked up the laws, And apparently where the trial took place, a minor actually cant get jail time for manslaughter, even with drunk driving
hotsauceman1 wrote: So, I think we might be getting this wrong.
Me and my friend looked up the laws, And apparently where the trial took place, a minor actually cant get jail time for manslaughter, even with drunk driving
You can be tried as an adult down to 14 years old.
Talizvar wrote: In Canada criminal code section 255 sub-section 3:
Any "Impaired Driving Causing Death" = "life imprisonment".
No, that isn't what it says. The phrase "liable to imprisonment for life." means that a given individual may, if convicted, may be subject to life imprisonment. It does not mean that they must be subject to life imprisonment.
Which makes more sense as impairment might not be the fault of the driver. eg spiked drinks.
Talizvar wrote: In Canada criminal code section 255 sub-section 3:
Any "Impaired Driving Causing Death" = "life imprisonment".
No, that isn't what it says. The phrase "liable to imprisonment for life." means that a given individual may, if convicted, may be subject to life imprisonment. It does not mean that they must be subject to life imprisonment.
Which makes more sense as impairment might not be the fault of the driver. eg spiked drinks.
Could mean many things, heart attack, fit, maybe it only takes a few seconds.
Voluntary and involuntary impairment are a huge difference
It's bad but if you cannot help the cause, then obviously you don,t deserve jail time. Ie heart attack, you cannot see that coming.
Frazzled wrote: Not that I am aware of and thats partially the point.
Truthfully, I hate to be that guy, but I'm not 100% sure that's true. I've thus far refrained from opining on this aspect of the case because I suspect this is going to be a pretty unpopular opinion but, I don't think his original sentence was that outlandish at all, really. I suspect if you compare him to his peers (white males his age with no significant priors) who face the same charge, who have non-public representation without being "rich", I suspect most of them would not have done much of any time for what he did initially. I doubt many judges with that set of circumstances would look at a 16 year old white teenager and go, yup, 10 years. The really outrageous part of the cause was the revolting defense theory*, but I don't think the sentencing was totally out of line.
*well, and the fact that a black teenager in similar circumstances would have almost certainly done time imo
Compel wrote: What does probation mean in American terms? Is it a case of, "if you do something naughty in the next X months, we'll be really cross with you."
Or is it something more than that? Like, for example, community service.
Far as I know its like a suspended sentence, we let you out supervised and under our watch, do anything wrong it's back to jail. Break any rules it can be back to jail.
Compel wrote: What does probation mean in American terms? Is it a case of, "if you do something naughty in the next X months, we'll be really cross with you.".
It's essentially a sentenced supervision. The person has to check in with a probation officer every so often, generally has to comply with drug tests and such, and so on.
jhe90 wrote: Far as I know its like a suspended sentence, we let you out supervised and under our watch, do anything wrong it's back to jail
Here this is called an ACD - Adjournment in contemplation of dismissal. It's similar to probation except the original sentence is pending. If there are no violations, the original charge is dismissed. If a new violation occurs, you have to answer for both the original violation as well as the new one. It's different than a final sentencing of probation in that the original charge is not pending, it's been sentenced and done.
Ouze wrote: supervision. The person has to check in with a probation officer every so often, generally has to comply with drug tests and such, and so on.
jhe90 wrote: Far as I know its like a suspended sentence, we let you out supervised and under our watch, do anything wrong it's back to jail
Here this is called an ACD - Adjournment in contemplation of dismissal. It's similar to probation except the original sentence is pending. If there are no violations, the original charge is dismissed. If a new violation occurs, you have to answer for both the original violation as well as the new one. It's different than a final sentencing of probation in that the original charge is not pending, it's been sentenced and done.
I think it's also called a "suspended sentence" in some places? I think that's what we call it here in Oklahoma.
Ouze wrote: supervision. The person has to check in with a probation officer every so often, generally has to comply with drug tests and such, and so on.
jhe90 wrote: Far as I know its like a suspended sentence, we let you out supervised and under our watch, do anything wrong it's back to jail
Here this is called an ACD - Adjournment in contemplation of dismissal. It's similar to probation except the original sentence is pending. If there are no violations, the original charge is dismissed. If a new violation occurs, you have to answer for both the original violation as well as the new one. It's different than a final sentencing of probation in that the original charge is not pending, it's been sentenced and done.
I think it's also called a "suspended sentence" in some places? I think that's what we call it here in Oklahoma.
Still nothing light, uk suspended sentence still means a single foot wrong can get you back in jail fast, for full term suspended from several weeks to years in jail. Not a minor legal sanction
Ouze wrote: supervision. The person has to check in with a probation officer every so often, generally has to comply with drug tests and such, and so on.
jhe90 wrote: Far as I know its like a suspended sentence, we let you out supervised and under our watch, do anything wrong it's back to jail
Here this is called an ACD - Adjournment in contemplation of dismissal. It's similar to probation except the original sentence is pending. If there are no violations, the original charge is dismissed. If a new violation occurs, you have to answer for both the original violation as well as the new one. It's different than a final sentencing of probation in that the original charge is not pending, it's been sentenced and done.
I think it's also called a "suspended sentence" in some places? I think that's what we call it here in Oklahoma.
Still nothing light, uk suspended sentence still means a single foot wrong can get you back in jail fast, for full term suspennded from several weeks to years in jail. Not a minor legal sanction
The nastiest UK case I can think of are those two boys who laid the toddler on the railroad tracks and got let out, apparently to some public outcry, years later. Didn't one of them get into trouble almost right away and go back to jail?
Ouze wrote: supervision. The person has to check in with a probation officer every so often, generally has to comply with drug tests and such, and so on.
jhe90 wrote: Far as I know its like a suspended sentence, we let you out supervised and under our watch, do anything wrong it's back to jail
Here this is called an ACD - Adjournment in contemplation of dismissal. It's similar to probation except the original sentence is pending. If there are no violations, the original charge is dismissed. If a new violation occurs, you have to answer for both the original violation as well as the new one. It's different than a final sentencing of probation in that the original charge is not pending, it's been sentenced and done.
I think it's also called a "suspended sentence" in some places? I think that's what we call it here in Oklahoma.
Still nothing light, uk suspended sentence still means a single foot wrong can get you back in jail fast, for full term suspended from several weeks to years in jail. Not a minor legal sanction
Thats how probation is, depending on what you are on probation for. Violating it can land in very hot water.
Thats how probation is, depending on what you are on probation for. Violating it can land in very hot water.
To (maybe) help clarify some of the terms used in the US for others:
Probation: Convicted of crime A and receive a non-prison sentence. If you don't screw up you never go to prison, but you are always have that conviction on your record. If you screw up you can get jail time, and if you screw up bad enough you can also get additional conviction for crime B
Suspended/deferred sentence (and some other terms): Convicted of crime A and receive a non-prison sentence. If you don't screw up you never go to prison, and you also have the initial conviction removed from your record. If you screw up you can get jail time and crime A will stay on your record, and if you screw up bad enough you can also get additional conviction for crime B.
Ouze wrote: supervision. The person has to check in with a probation officer every so often, generally has to comply with drug tests and such, and so on.
jhe90 wrote: Far as I know its like a suspended sentence, we let you out supervised and under our watch, do anything wrong it's back to jail
Here this is called an ACD - Adjournment in contemplation of dismissal. It's similar to probation except the original sentence is pending. If there are no violations, the original charge is dismissed. If a new violation occurs, you have to answer for both the original violation as well as the new one. It's different than a final sentencing of probation in that the original charge is not pending, it's been sentenced and done.
I think it's also called a "suspended sentence" in some places? I think that's what we call it here in Oklahoma.
Still nothing light, uk suspended sentence still means a single foot wrong can get you back in jail fast, for full term suspennded from several weeks to years in jail. Not a minor legal sanction
The nastiest UK case I can think of are those two boys who laid the toddler on the railroad tracks and got let out, apparently to some public outcry, years later. Didn't one of them get into trouble almost right away and go back to jail?
One got caught as a pedo. Child images and that kind of thing I believe it was. The second has remained more low key.
Talizvar wrote: In Canada criminal code section 255 sub-section 3:
Any "Impaired Driving Causing Death" = "life imprisonment".
No, that isn't what it says. The phrase "liable to imprisonment for life." means that a given individual may, if convicted, may be subject to life imprisonment. It does not mean that they must be subject to life imprisonment.
Which makes more sense as impairment might not be the fault of the driver. eg spiked drinks.
Could mean many things, heart attack, fit, maybe it only takes a few seconds.
Voluntary and involuntary impairment are a huge difference
It's bad but if you cannot help the cause, then obviously you don,t deserve jail time. Ie heart attack, you cannot see that coming.
Heart attack wouldn't count as driving while impaired. You were driving then you got impaired. Heart attacks are open and shut cases, even if they cause horrific accidents. Its just a random accident. Spiked drinks however are a grey area, because you can be driving under the influence, yet be unaware you are bresking the law if the subsance hasn't kicked in yet, and/or you dont know you have taken anything you didn't intentionally imbibe.
Side effects from newly supplied legal medication is another such area, and it why people on new drugs are recommended not to drive until they know hoe it effects them, though in most cases there is no law against taking medication and driving.
Grey Templar wrote: I doubt it'll be a wrist slap again. It would be very very tough to justify being lenient with someone who fled the country.
A combination of public outcry, resentencing and skipping the country means in my opinion ouch is likely to get maximum time for both the re-sentenced DUI and another ten years plus on top for trying to flee the country. As he is a flight risk that means no bail and automatic entry into state maximum security if sentenced. All told Couch is now likely looking at 16-22 years in supermax. Well thats my prediction anyway.
Grey Templar wrote: I doubt it'll be a wrist slap again. It would be very very tough to justify being lenient with someone who fled the country.
This part of the article I linked has me a bit concerned it might be just a wrist slap:
"After Couch's latest escapade, Tarrant County District Attorney Sharen Wilson said she planned to ask a judge to transfer his case to adult court at a scheduled Jan. 19 probation violation hearing.
Couch would then face up to 120 days in an adult jail, followed by 10 years' probation. If he violates probation, he could face up to 10 years in prison per death, Wilson said.
If the judge declines to transfer Couch to adult court, Wilson will ask that his probation be revoked, in which case he could be held in a juvenile facility until his sentence expires when he turns 19 next April.
Anderson said an arrest warrant was being issued for Tonya Couch on charges of hindering an apprehension, a third-degree felony that carries a sentence of two to 10 years in prison."
I think no leniency is a gimme at this point. He probably won't even be granted bail since he's clearly a flight risk.
Edit: Sorry, I somehow missed that Orlanth already said almost exactly what I just said.
• Ethan Couch, 18, received a slap-on-the-wrist probation term for killing four people in a drunk driving accident
• He fled with his mother, Tonya Couch, to Mexico after a video surfaced on Twitter showing him allegedly playing beer pong, violating probation
• Ethan is currently sitting in a jail fighting efforts to extradite him to Texas
• Tonya Couch was returned to Texas Thursday to face a charge of helping her son to evade capture
• She was advised of the charge at a court hearing Friday morning by Tarrant County Judge Wayne Salvant
• Her bond is $1million and her attorney has requested for it to be reduced to $15,000 arguing that 'the amount of bail set is unreasonable'
Tarrant County Sheriff Dee Anderson, who was in the courtroom Friday with several sheriff’s deputies, said that Couch complained about her stay in the jail, according to The Dallas Morning News.
Anderson said that she didn't sleep much.
'I explained to her that this was a jail, not a resort,” Anderson told reporters.
They even called a psychologist who testified that Couch, who was 16 at the time, suffered from "affluenza" -- meaning he was a rich kid whose parents didn't set limits for him.
So are bails like set amounts? I feel like cases like this would be easier handled if they made the bond a % of their net worth and scale that with the severity, with a set minimum amount if needed of course. Cause $15k is nothing to some people and that shouldn't allow them to do whatever they feel like doing.
I agree a lot with that really, but I figured bail would be for more minor things and to save space for the even worse people... Fact is they shouldn't even be given bail in the first place for this.
From what I know, Bail is set according to the severity of the crime and the flight risk. Given that she is a proven flight risk I am surprised she was given bail at all.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Another idea could be to not let people get out of jail just because they have money. Crazy, for sure.
The US constitution prohibits setting excessive bails. There was no reason to deny him bail initially. Denying bail simply because someone is wealthy would not pass constitutional muster, although it would be a factor for setting how much.
I wouldn't have granted either of them bail, currently, since they are both established flight risks.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Another idea could be to not let people get out of jail just because they have money. Crazy, for sure.
The US constitution prohibits setting excessive bails. There was no reason to deny him bail initially. Denying bail simply because someone is wealthy would not pass constitutional muster, although it would be a factor for setting how much.
I wouldn't have granted either of them bail, currently, since they are both established flight risks.
I was taking a dig at the system of letting people go because they have money in general.
Orlanth wrote: All told Couch is now likely looking at 16-22 years in supermax. Well thats my prediction anyway.
Supermax? Seriously? lol
My guess is he serves the remainder of his sentence in a medium or maximum security state prison. I'd also bet he winds up in protective custody because he's so detached from reality he'll be a target in genpop.
Didn't someone link a video about a "millenial" in prison being in complete denial? That's what we're looking at here, is my guess.
I agree that she isn't really a flight risk, and even if she were she's clearly unable to afford losing that much.
She is formerly a flight risk, but ankle bracelets mitigate that risk, as do the conditions, changs of circumstances and a large dose of cold hard reality.
It is reasonable to suggest that someone can explain to Ms Couch that trying to run away twice will be a seriously bad idea.
In a way its an intelligence test for her. Stick to bail, conditions to the letter or spend the rest of the time awaiting trial in prison and get a stiff sentence afterwards.
Her current alleged crime is unlikely to result in a custodial sentence, just a fine, which the bail absorbs anyway and a lot of community service.
If she escapes again she wont get far, she isn't a real hardened fugitive with knowledge of how to evade police long term and she will exhaust her finances quickly and could never return home. She is also hated and will quickly be looked fro and found. $75K is still a token amount for a rich person to avoid gaol, it is enough for the message to sink in.
Also she cant save her son any more no matter what she does. On this last part I haver some sympathy for her, she took her misguided actions beause she loves the brat, which is a mothers job. Ok she sucked as a mother in many ways hence the successful affluenza defence but a mother harbouring her own child from the law should be punished lightly for the act.
Orlanth wrote: All told Couch is now likely looking at 16-22 years in supermax. Well thats my prediction anyway.
Supermax? Seriously? lol
My guess is he serves the remainder of his sentence in a medium or maximum security state prison. I'd also bet he winds up in protective custody because he's so detached from reality he'll be a target in genpop.
Normally in the Uk escape risk inmates go into maximum security (Cat A) the rest gom into Cat B until assessed.
Looking at the US system it is fairly similar, have you tried to escape before or tried to run from an existing court restriction and your category of risk goes up. Couch is a high risk offender as reality hasn't sunk in yet. Maybe after a year inside his delusions will be washed away and he can be recategorised. However from what I read about the US penitentiary system when in one prison category you tend to stay there.
'Supermax' is a loose term. No Couch isnt in anywhere near the same category as terrorists and the people they place in Florence and similar centres, actual supermax. I was using it in the media sense to refer to maximum security prisons, of which there are a lot more and are often called supermax also.
You are correct though and I was not.
A judge on Friday sent the Texas teenager who used an "affluenza" defense in a fatal drunken-driving wreck to adult court, raising the possibility that he could get jail time for the 2013 crash that killed four people.
Ethan Couch was 16 at the time of the crash. During his juvenile trial, a defense expert invoked the term "affluenza" while arguing that Couch's wealthy parents had coddled him into a sense of irresponsibility.
Friday's ruling means the now 18-year-old Couch could face up to 120 days in jail, then finish his 10-year probation. But if he violates his probation during that time, he could get up to 10 years in prison for each of the four people killed in the accident.
Among those attending the hearing was Sergio Molina, who was riding in the back of Couch's pickup and was left paralyzed by the wreck. He can only communicate by blinking his eyes.
Molina attended with his mother and brother, Alexander Lemus, who said that what he wanted from the Couches was "that they pay."
"What's 120 days in county? Lemus asked. "That's nothing. We need help. They have so much money, they need to pay."
The judge ordered that the case be transferred before Couch turns 19 in April. He remains in custody.
Couch's attorney, Scott Brown, did not fight the transfer. Although he has not explained the strategy, the punishment could have been greater if the judge had kept the case in the juvenile system.
Staying in juvenile court could have set off a series of hearings to determine whether Couch violated his existing probation, which potentially could have led to 10 years in adult prison when Couch ages out of the juvenile system at 19.
See more of our top stories on Facebook >>
By having the case transferred to the adult system, Couch will not face the possibility of a lengthy prison term unless he violates probation in the future. He may, however, face up to several months in the county jail.
After the hearing, Brown said he would not request any specific terms of probation for Couch.
A hearing to set the probation terms has not yet been scheduled.
Couch and his mother, Tonya Couch, disappeared in December, as prosecutors investigated whether he had violated his probation. They were later found in Mexico and deported.
Ethan Couch's blood-alcohol level was three times the legal limit for adult drivers when he rammed a pickup truck into a crowd of people trying to help a stranded motorist on the side of a road near Fort Worth.
The probation sentence handed down by a juvenile court judge outraged prosecutors, who had called for him to face detention time.
Authorities believe that Ethan and Tonya Couch fled to Mexico in early December, after an online video surfaced that appeared to show the teenager at a party where alcohol was being served. Drinking alcohol would be a violation of his probation.
Mother and son were apprehended on Dec. 28, in the resort city of Puerto Vallarta. Tonya Couch, 48, was quickly deported; after being returned to Texas, she was released on bond with a GPS monitor. She is charged with hindering the apprehension of a felon.
Her son initially fought deportation but later dropped the fight and returned to Texas in late January. He was being held at the Tarrant County Jail.
Looks like he is still going to get out of a reasonable amount of jail time.
Relapse wrote: I figured he wasn't going to get any real time.
I have no problem with how things played out, because I am quite confident he can't go 10 years without violating his probation, and then he's looking at the justice previously dodged.
You know, I said it before, but the damndest thing about all of this is how if when the beer pong video had came out, he probably wouldn't have really been in any trouble, had he not fled the country - ultimately he was just a juvenile with a really minor probation violation which is super common and it would have been heard in closed chambers probably. Now, of course, no judge that hears any future case with him will be willing to show any leniency whatsoever for fear of the public uproar, and the proceedings won't be sealed.
I'm surprised he got off so light from the get-go. Especially, in Texas of all places.
Here, he would have been charged with manslaughter at best from the start. And due to the crime, he would have likely been tried as an adult from the beginning, since he was 16.
Of course, he would have started his sentence in juvie regardless of his trial status, until he turned 18. Then, it would be off to big boy's prison, where Big Bubba loves him some spoiled little rich boys.
Relapse wrote: I figured he wasn't going to get any real time.
I have no problem with how things played out, because I am quite confident he can't go 10 years without violating his probation, and then he's looking at the justice previously dodged.
You know, I said it before, but the damndest thing about all of this is how if when the beer pong video had came out, he probably wouldn't have really been in any trouble, had he not fled the country - ultimately he was just a juvenile with a really minor probation violation which is super common and it would have been heard in closed chambers probably. Now, of course, no judge that hears any future case with him will be willing to show any leniency whatsoever for fear of the public uproar, and the proceedings won't be sealed.
Just a very, very weird choice to have made.
I worry about who else he might get killed along the way to doing some real time for his offences. He's already demonstrated he doesn't give a gak about those he has killed already.
Relapse wrote: I worry about who else he might get killed along the way to doing some real time for his offences. He's already demonstrated he doesn't give a gak about those he has killed already.
This is a very good point that I had not considered.
Relapse wrote: I worry about who else he might get killed along the way to doing some real time for his offences. He's already demonstrated he doesn't give a gak about those he has killed already.
This is a very good point that I had not considered.
He is a risk only to himself. This is no hard man, just a brat with a callous attitude and a sense of entitlement. He is shiv bait frankly and will have to toe the line inside.
120 days though may be the cold shower needed to clean him up without being long enough to harden him. Once the cell door closes the walls close in also, he might be self absorbed, but that will get his attention quickly. he wont want to go back and might decide to go dry (or as near to dry that the law will leave him alone) for the remainder of his ten years probation.
Ouze wrote: This is a very good point that I had not considered.
He is a risk only to himself.
Lolwut? He killed 4 people and crippled 2 more.
He had a road traffic accident while drink driving. He is culpable, but there is no evidence of malice or insanity.
What you say only makes sense if he deliberately rammed the victims.
No, you're moving the goalposts to a completely new discussion. First you argued he wasn't a danger to anyone else, and I pointed out he was. His motivations are totally irrelevant to the fact he unambiguously was, and is, a danger to other people.
Ouze wrote: This is a very good point that I had not considered.
He is a risk only to himself.
Lolwut? He killed 4 people and crippled 2 more.
He had a road traffic accident while drink driving. He is culpable, but there is no evidence of malice or insanity.
What you say only makes sense if he deliberately rammed the victims.
No, you're moving the goalposts to a completely new discussion. First you argued he wasn't a danger to anyone else, and I pointed out he was. His motivations are totally irrelevant to the fact he unambiguously was, and is, a danger to other people.
Goalposts unmoved. Everyone is technically a danger to society because anyone can pick up a knife and stab people, barring those too physically disabled to do so.
Drink driving is a serious offense but those convicted of it don't specifically count as a danger to society unless they somehow repeat the offense with any frequency.
'Danger to society' generally means someone who is violently criminal or mentally unstable and potentially violent.
'Danger to society' generally means someone who is violently criminal or mentally unstable and potentially violent.
Or those who are unable to realise the dangers and potential repercussions of their actions. Such as someone who drives while drunk.
One time? This isn't multiple DWI offenses. Just the one and probation and fleeing. Anyone that drinks and owns a car has driven when they shouldn't have at least once. Whether you admit it or not,
I feel like this guy is hated so much because he admits to being rich. We all know the system but people like him admit it and they're hated. Rich people have always gotten off lighter since time immemorial
I think it's fair to say that drunk people have a tendency to make poor judgement calls. Not just behind the wheel, but also in the decision to get behind the wheel. It probably depends on what kind of person you are while drinking, I've never personally managed to get so drunk that I lose all control and don't remember what I did (I'll usually throw up before that stage). But I've known people (nice, mild mannered people) who can drink so much they completely lose control... getting in fights, exposing themselves, soiling themselves, getting arrested etc... And the next day they don't even remember what happened.
It's easy to claim while sober that you would never drive while drunk, but it's not the "sober you" that will have to make that call. If your judgement is impaired enough then who really knows what you'll do. Even the decision to get drunk can be a slippery slope for some people. You can start with a sensible "I'll just have one", which turns into "oh, go on then, one more", and as you get more and more impaired, buying a round of tequila shots starts to sound more and more like a good idea. The next thing you know you're staggering around town singing Irish songs and shouting at pigeons.
That's not to say we should excuse drunk drivers completely, but to say they are as culpable as premeditated murderers is the complete other ridiculous extreme.
DutchWinsAll wrote: One time? This isn't multiple DWI offenses. Just the one and probation and fleeing. Anyone that drinks and owns a car has driven when they shouldn't have at least once. Whether you admit it or not,
He's been arrested before for driving while drunk, when he was 15. And when he killed those people, he was three times the legal limit, and on valium. And he was going 30 miles an hour over the speed limit.
While I agree that most people have driven while over the limit, whether they admit to it or not, there is a matter of extent that you’re ignoring.
I feel like this guy is hated so much because he admits to being rich. We all know the system but people like him admit it and they're hated. Rich people have always gotten off lighter since time immemorial
This is guy is hated because the internet selects people and makes them in to punching bags. It’s easier than talking about the complexities of institutional problems.
He is, basically, a screwed up kid. Whether a screwed up kid needs rehab and psych work, or a jail sentence to scare them straight I honestly don’t know. But I do know that when courts answer that question, they answer it very differently when the screwed up kid has rich parents or poor parents.
sebster wrote: But I do know that when courts answer that question, they answer it very differently when the screwed up kid has rich parents or poor parents.
And that is the crux of the outrage here. This kid got off because he's white and has rich parents.
It's a shame we can't send the original trial judge to prison for a year or two for perverting justice.
Breotan wrote: And that is the crux of the outrage here. This kid got off because he's white and has rich parents.
Yeah. But part of the issue is with how we then express that outrage - we just target one person, call them a villain and set about hating them. It's like the Martin Shkreli - he jacks up the price of a drug, everyone hates him and then... what? We just have our fun calling someone a villain, but we never get on to the actual, useful conversation about the screwed up system that these people work within.
It's a shame we can't send the original trial judge to prison for a year or two for perverting justice.
That'd set a very dangerous precedent. The legal process is pretty crappy at times, but imagine if judges ruled under fear of being targeted themselves, if a case they ruled on attracted the attention of an angry populace.
It's a shame we can't send the original trial judge to prison for a year or two for perverting justice.
If a savvy defence lawyer makes a good case for affluenza and the prosecution attorney isn't savvy enough to shoot it down the judge has to go with what is presented to him.
Saying the defence made a good case and the prosecution a bad one, but I am going with the prosecution anyway isnt fair.
A judge cant make judgements on proceedings based on how the media will see the outcome, if there is the slightest whiff of that he will have to recluse himself and there could be cause for a mistrial.
It is quite unfair to blame the judge for this as it was atrial, not an inquiry. At an inquiry the judge makes his own conclusions, at a trial the rival attorneys present the evidence and the evidence as presented and that alone is used to weigh judgement,
The person with the responsibility to smash an affluenze defence is whoever is presenting the case from the DA's office.
I there is a jury it gets even more complex. A good defence attorney need only convince them and a fair trial judge will remind the jury that the defence attorney doesn't have burden of proof, only reasonable likelihood to establish his claims.
Whoever the Couchs hired three years ago to defend their son did a very good job, it might be a scumbag verdict, but that attorney's professional rep will be stellar right now.
Smacks wrote: I think it's fair to say that drunk people have a tendency to make poor judgement calls. Not just behind the wheel, but also in the decision to get behind the wheel. It probably depends on what kind of person you are while drinking, I've never personally managed to get so drunk that I lose all control and don't remember what I did (I'll usually throw up before that stage). But I've known people (nice, mild mannered people) who can drink so much they completely lose control... getting in fights, exposing themselves, soiling themselves, getting arrested etc... And the next day they don't even remember what happened.
It's easy to claim while sober that you would never drive while drunk, but it's not the "sober you" that will have to make that call. If your judgement is impaired enough then who really knows what you'll do. Even the decision to get drunk can be a slippery slope for some people. You can start with a sensible "I'll just have one", which turns into "oh, go on then, one more", and as you get more and more impaired, buying a round of tequila shots starts to sound more and more like a good idea. The next thing you know you're staggering around town singing Irish songs and shouting at pigeons.
That's not to say we should excuse drunk drivers completely, but to say they are as culpable as premeditated murderers is the complete other ridiculous extreme.
At this point, in my mind anyway, if someone knows how uncontrollable they are when they get drunk, either through remembering, being told or shown a video etc., then the fault is all theirs when they decide to drink. They are willingly committing an act that they know can have bad consequences of varying degrees for themselves or others.
I'm not saying they are making themselves premeditated murderers, but they are doing the equivalent of walking blindfolded into a room with a loaded gun and firing at random, not knowing if they are going to hit someone or not. This, I think, calls for a stiffer penalty.
Did anyone on here actually say that? That's pretty dumb. Money shouldn't matter. Not in this instance or any other. Actions are what should matter.
For that goalpost discussion...he fethed up bad by driving drunk. He screwed up, ended lives, and deserves punishment for it. And he should be treated the exact same way any other drunk driver should be punished who takes a life. His social stature shouldn't matter. Nor should he need psychiatric care. If it was a poor kid who did this, would your responses be different? If so, you're a hypocritical jackass (general "you", not aimed at anyone specifically). A drunk driving teen took four lives. Proven without a shadow of doubt. Set the charge, pay no attention to wealth of family (except on the order of bail, which I recognize is and always will be a sliding scale based on finances).
At this point, in my mind anyway, if someone knows how uncontrollable they are when they get drunk, either through remembering, being told or shown a video etc., then the fault is all theirs when they decide to drink. They are willingly committing an act that they know can have bad consequences of varying degrees for themselves or others. I'm not saying they are making themselves premeditated murderers, but they are doing the equivalent of walking blindfolded into a room with a loaded gun and firing at random, not knowing if they are going to hit someone or not. This, I think, calls for a stiffer penalty.
This. I am someone who, when drunk, can be quite aggressive. In order to avoid having something happen that I will regret, I now do not ever drink anywhere enough to get into that state. I can still go out and get drunk on a night out but only ever within my own limit, which I set at the lower end to be safe.
Also, if you do not want to get into a state where you drink drive then either:
a) Do not drink enough to put you over the limit. or b) Do not take your car with you. Use public transport like a bus or taxi.
Also, if you do not want to get into a state where you drink drive then either:
a) Do not drink enough to put you over the limit.
or
b) Do not take your car with you. Use public transport like a bus or taxi.
There is a c) : don't drink any alcohol at all. Simple, but effective.
But here, the sense of responsibilty was clearly lacking for this kid from the very beginning. Not sure following a therapy is really the right answer, here - you need the will to change yourself, it doesn't grow on you with a magical wand. If he fled to another state to try to escape his very low punishment, it may mean he doesn't have it.
Sarouan wrote: There is a c) don't drink any alcohol at all. Simple, but effective..
Normally I'm not in favor of the abstinence-only option but in this case, since he's still 2 more years from legally drinking anyway it's a little more reasonable.
Sarouan wrote: There is a c) don't drink any alcohol at all. Simple, but effective..
Normally I'm not in favor of the abstinence-only option but in this case, since he's still 2 more years from legally drinking anyway it's a little more reasonable.
Well, it's all a matter of choice you take. That kid clearly didn't bother to choose that c) option.
It happens often, unfortunately. Lots of stupid accidents begin because of someone thinking he HAD TO drink so that he can have fun/show off/do like the others/feel strong - and not thinking about consequences.
Thing is, it's never a fatality to drink. It's a choice you make. The bottle didn't fall into your hands and put itself directly into your mouth, after all.
I know, there are people who are alcoholic. But hey...there was a first drink at the beginning, and someone who decided to take it (hint; it's not God).
It's a shame we can't send the original trial judge to prison for a year or two for perverting justice.
If a savvy defence lawyer makes a good case for affluenza and the prosecution attorney isn't savvy enough to shoot it down the judge has to go with what is presented to him.
Saying the defence made a good case and the prosecution a bad one, but I am going with the prosecution anyway isnt fair.
What the hell are you talking about? The kid was found guilty in a court of law. It's the sentence that the Judge handed down that was bad. He let a rich, white kid with no remorse off with probation and no jail time while dark skinned kids who cause accidents while drunk driving are given 10 or 20 year prison terms.
Smacks wrote: I think it's fair to say that drunk people have a tendency to make poor judgement calls. Not just behind the wheel, but also in the decision to get behind the wheel. It probably depends on what kind of person you are while drinking, I've never personally managed to get so drunk that I lose all control and don't remember what I did (I'll usually throw up before that stage). But I've known people (nice, mild mannered people) who can drink so much they completely lose control... getting in fights, exposing themselves, soiling themselves, getting arrested etc... And the next day they don't even remember what happened.
It's easy to claim while sober that you would never drive while drunk, but it's not the "sober you" that will have to make that call. If your judgement is impaired enough then who really knows what you'll do. Even the decision to get drunk can be a slippery slope for some people. You can start with a sensible "I'll just have one", which turns into "oh, go on then, one more", and as you get more and more impaired, buying a round of tequila shots starts to sound more and more like a good idea. The next thing you know you're staggering around town singing Irish songs and shouting at pigeons.
That's not to say we should excuse drunk drivers completely, but to say they are as culpable as premeditated murderers is the complete other ridiculous extreme.
At this point, in my mind anyway, if someone knows how uncontrollable they are when they get drunk, either through remembering, being told or shown a video etc., then the fault is all theirs when they decide to drink. They are willingly committing an act that they know can have bad consequences of varying degrees for themselves or others. I'm not saying they are making themselves premeditated murderers, but they are doing the equivalent of walking blindfolded into a room with a loaded gun and firing at random, not knowing if they are going to hit someone or not. This, I think, calls for a stiffer penalty.
I think, so long as we can agree there is a middle-ground between premeditated murder and completely innocent, we're on the right track.
I think it probably takes people a while to come to terms with a drinking problem. You say "if somebody knows how uncontrollable they are", and I would agree with your gun analogy if that were the case, but unfortunately people don't always know, or they are in various stages of denial or dependency. It's tempting when something tragic happens to say "they should have known better", but you can say that about any mistake. I think a lot us have probably made really stupid mistakes at some point in our lives, and it's only through sheer luck that no one was hurt. We might not even realise when we did it.
Ideas like deliberacy and culpability are pretty central to law, they are what makes the difference between a loan and a theft, or an accident and assault. So if there is anywhere where we really need to be at our most honest and objective it's there. When we make heavy-handed analogies, I don't think we do ourselves or anyone else justice.
You may not have control while you are drinking, however you did make a conscious decision to get drunk in the first place. Thats why you still should get held accountable for your actions, just not as much as if you'd deliberately killed someone, depending on the circumstances.
As for this kid, we have either two possibilities. Either he changes his ways(Unlikely IMO) or he continues to make bad choices and eventually makes another major screwup and gets handed a big sentence, which should have happened in the first place. Really this guy shouldn't have gotten off as light as he did.
Orlanth wrote: Whoever the Couchs hired three years ago to defend their son did a very good job, it might be a scumbag verdict, but that attorney's professional rep will be stellar right now.
He certainly did a good job, but that wasn't the only factor at play. We humans give more leeway to people with status and wealth, than to people without. I don’t know why, some sort of tribal hierarchy thing, I think.
Point is, it isn’t just about having a good lawyer who can come with a good defence. Walking in to a courtroom rich is an advantage all of its own.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Smacks wrote: Ideas like deliberacy and culpability are pretty central to law, they are what makes the difference between a loan and a theft, or an accident and assault.
There are also degrees of difference between a true accident, recklessness and negligence.
Grey Templar wrote: Other than having a good lawyer, what does just being rich do? Let you pay fines a little easier?
It's not actually what he's talking about, but fines and wealth are a very important thing to talk. If fines are not enacted in proportion to wealth and income, then they lose their impact. If you have a $10K fine on your average worker, that's a big deal, but a multi-millionare? A drop in the bucket.
Grey Templar wrote: Other than having a good lawyer, what does just being rich do? Let you pay fines a little easier?
That's probably one of the main things. A $100 fine can be a back breaker for someone that is already stretching their paycheck pretty thin and it's nothing for someone that won't even notice it's gone. This is part of the reason why some countries base fines on income instead of having it be a fixed amount.
Grey Templar wrote: Other than having a good lawyer, what does just being rich do? Let you pay fines a little easier?
It's not actually what he's talking about, but fines and wealth are a very important thing to talk. If fines are not enacted in proportion to wealth and income, then they lose their impact. If you have a $10K fine on your average worker, that's a big deal, but a multi-millionare? A drop in the bucket.
I'm sort of conflicted about that.
On one hand, you are correct that they lose their impact. but then again you are changing the punishment depending on the characteristics of the offender which are unrelated to the crime(you aren't applying equal justice. Its discrimination). Especially since if the incomes are closer it becomes a little silly, why should someone who makes 40k pay a smaller fine than someone who makes 50k? And at some point for the really wealthy it would be flat out stupid, billionaire throws a cup out his car window and has to pay 10 grand. A janitor does it and has to pay $50.
Maybe we should ditch fines entirely for individuals and replace them with community service or something that would suck equally for everyone.
Smacks wrote: Ideas like deliberacy and culpability are pretty central to law, they are what makes the difference between a loan and a theft, or an accident and assault.
There are also degrees of difference between a true accident, recklessness and negligence.
Absolutely! That's what I was trying to convey. Culpability is one of the most important factors in separating true accidents, recklessness, negligence, manslaughter, murder, self defence, entrapment, duress, insanity, and probably infinite points in between... Without considering culpability those things can all look the the same ("you killed someone"). That is why it's so important to approach it honestly.
Grey Templar wrote: You may not have control while you are drinking, however you did make a conscious decision to get drunk in the first place. Thats why you still should get held accountable for your actions, just not as much as if you'd deliberately killed someone, depending on the circumstances.
That's true enough, but we also make the conscious decision to step out our front door, and a bunch of other concious decisions that we don't expect to eventually lead to someone's death. I'm not disagreeing with you, but I would emphasise that it is not just black and white. A lot of people drink and don't drive or kill anyone, so there must be some other factors at work too.
Making a decision to act recklessly is itself the crime IMO. Thats why getting drunk itself is a crime in many places(in public anyway). Its basically consciously saying "damn the consequences" and doing something that could be a danger to yourself and others, weather someone actually gets hurt or not you've still done something wrong.
When one chooses to walk out their door they don't do so knowing there is a tangible risk of causing harm to others, quite the opposite. The same cannot be said for drinking and driving. The fact is the punishment must not only account for the crime, but account for incidents where the risk was taken without penalty. Put another way, the punishment primarily exists as a method to ensure that people don't do it in the first place. Thus, the punishment must be severe enough that even a logic-impaired drunk person would reconsider their actions. Of course there is a lot of grey area (it is unrealistic to try and dissuade EVERY potential criminal) but you get the idea.
Grey Templar wrote: Other than having a good lawyer, what does just being rich do? Let you pay fines a little easier?
It's not actually what he's talking about, but fines and wealth are a very important thing to talk. If fines are not enacted in proportion to wealth and income, then they lose their impact. If you have a $10K fine on your average worker, that's a big deal, but a multi-millionare? A drop in the bucket.
I'm sort of conflicted about that.
On one hand, you are correct that they lose their impact. but then again you are changing the punishment depending on the characteristics of the offender which are unrelated to the crime(you aren't applying equal justice. Its discrimination). Especially since if the incomes are closer it becomes a little silly, why should someone who makes 40k pay a smaller fine than someone who makes 50k? And at some point for the really wealthy it would be flat out stupid, billionaire throws a cup out his car window and has to pay 10 grand. A janitor does it and has to pay $50.
Maybe we should ditch fines entirely for individuals and replace them with community service or something that would suck equally for everyone.
Oh, it's not a cut and dried issue, absolutely. It's one of those things that will probably never be solved for everybody's satisfaction.
NinthMusketeer wrote: When one chooses to walk out their door they don't do so knowing there is a tangible risk of causing harm to others, quite the opposite.The same cannot be said for drinking and driving.
No one said that was the same. By the time a drunk person chooses to get in a car, they have already lost the capacity for sober thought (clearly different on a number of levels).
The comparison was, in fact, made between walking out your door and choosing (while sober) to have a drink. If you are walking out your door and getting in a car, then the chances of you killing someone are probably an order of magnitude greater than if you're just sat at home having a beer on the sofa. The decision to "get drunk" isn't always something you can pinpoint. It might not even be deliberate, maybe you didn't eat enough that day, or you usually drink 5% Rose, and didn't realise the bottle of Pino Noir you've been hammering is a much stronger wine.
My point was, where do you draw the line? It isn't at the first drink, because having one drink and driving is usually legal. Maybe the third drink? Sure, if you get in your car when you know you're over the limit, you're consciously committing a crime (even if you are a bit tipsy). But what about the 16th drink? What if you run out the house with no pants on, and jump in your car, and drive off through your own hedge... do you still know what you are doing? Is it still because of that 3rd drink? or was it the 4th? Maybe the 7th? At what point while you were on your sofa drinking, did you consciously take that tangible risk of endangering other people?
NinthMusketeer wrote: When one chooses to walk out their door they don't do so knowing there is a tangible risk of causing harm to others, quite the opposite.The same cannot be said for drinking and driving.
No one said that was the same. By the time a drunk person chooses to get in a car, they have already lost the capacity for sober thought (clearly different on a number of levels).
The comparison was made between walking out your door and choosing (while sober) to have a drink. If you are walking out your door and getting in a car, then the chances of you killing someone are probably an order of magnitude greater than if you're just sat at home having a beer on the sofa. The decision to "get drunk" isn't always something you can pinpoint. It might not even be deliberate, maybe you didn't eat enough that day, or you usually drink 5% Rose, and didn't realise the bottle Pino Noir you've been hammering is a much stronger wine.
My point was, where do you draw the line? It isn't at the first drink, because having one drink and driving is usually legal. Maybe the third drink? Sure, if you get in your car when you know you're over the limit, you're consciously committing a crime (even if you are a bit tipsy). But what about a 16th drink? What if you run out the house with no pants on, and jump in your car, and drive off through your own hedge... do you still know what you are doing? Is it still because of that 3rd drink? or was it the 4th? Maybe the 7th? At what point while you were on your sofa drinking, did you consciously take that tangible risk of endangering other people?
It isn't a case of one choice as much as many; the choice to have the first drink may have been only a small mistake. But then it was compounded by the choice to have another, then another, and so on. Even if one did lose control of themselves completely through drinking, they still made choices which led them to getting that drunk. It IS a very fuzzy grey area, but humans are capable of thinking out these things and evaluating them before deciding on a course of action. If one chose not to do so, or chose to do so insufficiently, well that's one of those smaller mistakes. Put a different way, choosing to have one drink does not get a person so heavily influenced, but if one drink is enough to impair someone enough that they will chose to have a second, then a third, etc, then they should have evaluated the risk of the first drink better. Someone does not just become wasted behind the wheel; one way or another it was a chain of decisions that person was responsible for.
NinthMusketeer wrote: It isn't a case of one choice as much as many; the choice to have the first drink may have been only a small mistake. But then it was compounded by the choice to have another, then another, and so on. Even if one did lose control of themselves completely through drinking, they still made choices which led them to getting that drunk. It IS a very fuzzy grey area, but humans are capable of thinking out these things and evaluating them before deciding on a course of action. If one chose not to do so, or chose to do so insufficiently, well that's one of those smaller mistakes. Put a different way, choosing to have one drink does not get a person so heavily influenced, but if one drink is enough to impair someone enough that they will chose to have a second, then a third, etc, then they should have evaluated the risk of the first drink better. Someone does not just become wasted behind the wheel; one way or another it was a chain of decisions that person was responsible for.
Well I agree with that 100%, but I would also add that it can take time for people to recognise that they have a problem. A lot of people learn the hard way to recognise when they've had enough, or know not to drink because they've made mistakes in the past. I don't know much about this specific kid, so I'm not defending him, but generally speaking if someone is 16/17 then they are barely able to make responsible decisions when sober, never mind when drunk.
Grey Templar wrote: Other than having a good lawyer, what does just being rich do? Let you pay fines a little easier?
We show more empathy to people with status and power. It’s a very weird thing, but hard to deny once you see it. And in countries with very stark differences in wealth and status the effect is quite amazing. Arudhati Roy called it the queer compassion of the poor for the rich (to paraphrase).
And it’s very strange because it’s not a thing you’d ever see on the internet, or really when anyone is talking about rich people in a general or hypothetical sense. But when people deal with actual real people in the real world you just watch it happen, there will be sympathy for a rich person for dealing with the kind of thing the rest of us deal with every day.
I’ve got no doubt it impacted this verdict. A poor kid or a middle class kid comes in with record of driving while drunk, having killed people while hammered and driving 30 miles over the limit, and you think they’d get probation for claiming they were brought up thinking they had special privileges? But a rich kid comes in, and somehow that becomes a believable defense.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Smacks wrote: Absolutely! That's what I was trying to convey. Culpability is one of the most important factors in separating true accidents, recklessness, negligence, manslaughter, murder, self defence, entrapment, duress, insanity, and probably infinite points in between... Without considering culpability those things can all look the the same ("you killed someone"). That is why it's so important to approach it honestly.
Cool, we’re on the same page then.
Smacks wrote: My point was, where do you draw the line?
0.05, or 0.08, depending on the jurisdiction. That’s the line. And it sounds like I’m being a smart arse there but I’m not. There has to be a line drawn, and so that’s the line picked for drunkenness. Just like we had to pick an age for adulthood, so 18 was picked (21 for some things). So 0.05 was picked for drunkenness, people can argue that they can handle that much alcohol and still drive okay, and some of them might even be right, but a line had to be picked and that was it.
You are absolutely right. The law doesn't care how you got drunk, what chain of accidents, excuses or mistakes you made to do it. The law just says if your blood alcohol level is above the limit, and you get caught driving, even worse if you have a crash and even kill someone, you are guilty.
Smacks wrote: My point was, where do you draw the line?
0.05, or 0.08, depending on the jurisdiction. That’s the line. And it sounds like I’m being a smart arse there but I’m not. There has to be a line drawn, and so that’s the line picked for drunkenness. Just like we had to pick an age for adulthood, so 18 was picked (21 for some things). So 0.05 was picked for drunkenness, people can argue that they can handle that much alcohol and still drive okay, and some of them might even be right, but a line had to be picked and that was it.
EDIT: That isn't really the line I'm talking about. I'm talking more about the point where you're sober enough to choose to have another drink, and that is the same as choosing to kill someone. It's a separate issue from driving. In fact, it would not even necessarily need to involve a car.
There is an argument that goes something like:
1: Joe is fully responsible for how drunk he gets. 2: Joe killed someone, because he was drunk. 3: Therefore Joe is fully responsible for killing someone.
I am trying to contest this argument by pointing out that the first premise is not true. And also that choosing to get drunk and even choosing to drive while drunk, is not the same as choosing to kill someone. It's a non sequitur.
Kilkrazy wrote: The law doesn't care how you got drunk, what chain of accidents, excuses or mistakes you made to do it. The law just says if your blood alcohol level is above the limit, and you get caught driving ... you are guilty.
Which is fine when we are talking about driving, but if we are talking about culpability in someone's death, and sentencing, then the law actually does care, as it should.
Also if someone spiked your drink, the law would care. How you got drunk does matter.
If someone were spiked while drinking a non-alcoholic drink, and then went and drove before the affect took place, then yes, it's not really their fault.
I do remember a user here arguing that to them they would still deserve the death penalty.
If someone were spiked while drinking several alcoholic drinks then really, they're still going to be at fault.
If someone were not spiked and drank several alcoholic drinks then they're going to be at fault.
MrDwhitey wrote: If someone were spiked while drinking a non-alcoholic drink, and then went and drove before the affect took place, then yes, it's not really their fault.
I do remember a user here arguing that to them they would still deserve the death penalty.
IIRC, the argument was that even if the driver had a mini-stroke, they still should get the death penalty, because all that matters is outcomes, not reasons.
Oh, PeterWiggin, you were a candle that just burned too bright for these forums.
I expected to see him on here screaming about the Zika virus and trying to hose us down in hand sanitizer. I feel like we missed out on a great opportunity. :(
DUIs are ten a penny. This case got attention because it is about someone who killed four people, and didn't go to prison.
The point I wanted to make is that it's useless to worry about how the law treats other types of ofences when the case we are looking at actually is about drunk driving.
You make the same point youself by saying that this case got attention because despite being another drunk driving case, the treatment differed radically from other similar cases.
