Being a Spoiled Rich Kid is a Mental Illness

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Leigen_Zero**

hotsauceman1 wrote:Affluenza......Affluenza......fething AFFLUENZA!!!!!!!!!
I give up, I absolutely give up? Who wants to go start an Island nation where stupid puns like these are outlawed.
OT: I really wish that in order for a theory to be used in court it had to go through a peer journal

We shall start the Island Nations of Dakka. Where there is a chicken in every pot, and a Riptide in every Allies detachment!

But lets just face it here folks, we can waffle about justice and injustice, but we need to remember that the judicial system in the Western world is not about who is right and who is wrong, it's about who can spend the most on a legal team...

**Overread**

Ensis Ferrae wrote:

I wouldn't be so pissed if he were in some form of prison while at the same time getting "treatment" for whatever BS people want to say he has.

Depends what kind of facility he's sent to - some of them basically are just like prison only with doctors as well as wardens - he might not end up in one like that; however the mention of him being isolated from his parents might mean that he has to be to prevent contact outside of treatment times.

**Alfndrate**

hotsauceman1 wrote:
No. We need stupid people to breed, how else will we get our fast ffood workers

Aren't you a fast food worker?

I mean I wouldn't say you're stupid

**Ensis Ferrae**

Alfndrate wrote:
hotsauceman1 wrote:
No. We need stupid people to breed, how else will we get our fast ffood workers

Aren't you a fast food worker?

I mean I wouldn't say you're stupid

See now, I don't believe that fast food is the de facto industry for stupid people. Actually, it's quite honorable as a "First Job" while one is still living at home with the parents and attending whatever version of High School they attend (I know that UK and other countries call it something else)

**scarletsquig**

More like kid with rich parents bribed the judge.

It happens, a lot. Money gets you off the hook for anything, unless you piss off other people with money.

Just the way the world works.

**chaos0xomega**

Meanwhile nobody mentioned that the father/husband of 2 of the people killed equates healing with punishment... nobody? No? Is that what "healing" passes for these days? Vengeance?

**Kanluwen**

scarletsquig wrote:
More like kid with rich parents bribed the judge.

It happens, a lot. Money gets you off the hook for anything, unless you piss off other people with money.

Just the way the world works.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight...

**Medium of Death**

chaos0xomega wrote:
Meanwhile nobody mentioned that the father/husband of 2 of the people killed equates healing with punishment... nobody? No? Is that what "healing" passes for these days? Vengeance?

Is this the best we can do for blaming the victim these days?

I thought it was a bit strange that the guy put himself back to "week 1", but then again this guy has had his family destroyed and the person that does it gets to walk away.

**Krellnus**

Great, so having your head up your rear is a mental illness, what next?

**Frazzled**

Overread wrote:
Well considering the upper classes did used to inbreed a lot with each other (keeping money and land and influence within the right circles ) there could be a case for very old rich families that yeah its kinda inbreeding bad genes

Also this is interesting;

Judge Jean Boyd told the court she would not release Couch to his parents, but would work to find the teen a long-term treatment facility.

I think that there is a shift in the justice system toward corrective justice instead of purely punishment based justice. If you send the kid away to gaol then that is all he will get; with little chance for any corrective support. As a result you take a self entitled (and when released likely still rich) individual and all you do is embitter and likely alienate them from the greater part of society. So whilst you've given a nice big punishment little has been done to ensure correct behaviour upon release (indeed as part of the regular justice system he might even be influenced to perform similar or greater acts of criminal harm).

Removal from his parents influence is a fairly major thing and if he is sent to a corrective facility one might end up with an individual who can be corrected to be more contributing to society instead of leaching or harming society.

There is also the factor that if he voids probation he's looking at likely gaol time and it could be that the judge is half banking on the fact that with an individual who has never had limits much before the sudden imposition of them might easily cause a backlash - net result is he ends up in goal fully of his own accord and can't plea the "I'm a kid give me a chance" angle because he's already had it.

These are always complicated issues and there are always two sides of every coin. Whilst an individual is responsible for their actions understanding and appreciation of the factors that result in them leading up to that decision and also the influences that might affect what choice they make that that point is critical. It's only with that understanding that one can aim to treat the CAUSE and not just the effect (because if you deal with the latter you've not actually dealt with the problem behind it - as a result you leave the option open for a repeat offence).

At the end of the day what do you want? A long goal sentence that leaves you with an individual who is likely to repeat the same pattern of behaviour once released; or an alternative approach that results in a person who is significantly less likely to repeat the same process again.

Translation: in no way will anything bad happen to him even though he killed more people then Charles Manson.

**hotsauceman1**

Alfndrate wrote:
hotsauceman1 wrote:
No. We need stupid people to breed, how else will we get our fast ffood workers

Aren't you a fast food worker?

I mean I wouldn't say you're stupid

If you have seen me cook y'know the food we make is anything but fast. And yes I'm a fast food worker and not ashamed. Still I really don't want my next jod to be in food, it is a horrible job with customers always complaining about how you made the food or other things.

**Frazzled**

chaos0xomega wrote:
Meanwhile nobody mentioned that the father/husband of 2 of the people killed equates healing with punishment... nobody? No? Is that what "healing" passes for these days? Vengeance?

The best vengeance is... vengeance.

**chaos0xomega**

Medium of Death wrote:
chaos0xomega wrote:
Meanwhile nobody mentioned that the father/husband of 2 of the people killed equates healing with punishment... nobody? No? Is that what "healing" passes for these days? Vengeance?

Is this the best we can do for blaming the victim these days?

I thought it was a bit strange that the guy put himself back to "week 1", but then again this guy has had his family destroyed and the person that does it gets to walk away.

I'm not blaming the victim, I think the sentence, assuming the judge actually has good intentions of trying to rehabilitate the kid, was a good one, but at the same time I think the "victims" reaction is indicative/representative of the problem in the US regarding the justice system.

**Easy E**

Medium of Death wrote:
chaos0xomega wrote:
Meanwhile nobody mentioned that the father/husband of 2 of the people killed equates healing with punishment... nobody? No? Is that what "healing" passes for these days? Vengeance?

Is this the best we can do for blaming the victim these days?

I thought it was a bit strange that the guy put himself back to "week 1", but then again this guy has had his family destroyed and the person that does it gets to walk away.

Maybe he will become a real world Batman now?

**azazel the cat**

hotsauceman1 wrote:Affluenza......Affluenza......fething AFFLUENZA!!!!!!!!!
I give up, I absolutely give up? Who wants to go start an Island nation where stupid puns like these are outlawed.
OT: I really wish that in order for a theory to be used in court it had to go through a peer journal

Generally the prosecution can just raise a Daubert motion in limine and prevent whichever quack is promoting their crackpot theory from testifying as an expert witness, and then simply allow the Frye test to exclude the crackpot theory itself.

Affluenza would most definitely be tossed out of court in response to either of these.

**KalashnikovMarine**

Hang the kid. State needs to appeal asap.

**Manchu**

sebster wrote:
I'm starting to think these kinds of let-offs are more the result of that weird glitch in the human brain that makes us relate and empathise with richer more powerful people, while we ignore those below us. [...] Seriously, the human brain is fething screwy.

No need to reduce humanity to brain chemistry, even if that is the fashion. It's simply the case that similarly situated people are more likely to sympathize with one another than others. On balance, judges tend to have a lot more in common with rich defendants than poor ones.

**Kanluwen**

KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Hang the kid. State needs to appeal asap.

LOLWAT.

Seriously? "Hang the kid"?

**Manchu**

chaos0xomega wrote:
Meanwhile nobody mentioned that the father/husband of 2 of the people killed equates healing with punishment... nobody? No? Is that what "healing" passes for these days? Vengeance?

There's more to justice, even retributive justice, than some notion of personal vendetta. Most simply put, justice is the idea that people should get what they deserve. When people maliciously or recklessly harm others, they deserve commensurate punishment. When they escape such punishment, justice is not served.

Why is justice important to victims and the people generally? Because the sudden, seemingly arbitrary loss of the most important elements of one's life creates an existential crisis, not just for the particular victims but for the whole community. By asserting justice, we establish order in the wake of chaos.

**Kanluwen**

Manchu wrote:
sebster wrote:
I'm starting to think these kinds of let-offs are more the result of that weird glitch in the human brain that makes us relate and empathise with richer more powerful people, while we ignore those below us. [...] Seriously, the human brain is fething screwy.
No need to reduce humanity to brain chemistry, even if that is the fashion. It's simply the case that similarly situated people are more likely to sympathize with one another than others. On balance, judges tend to have a lot more in common with rich defendants than poor ones.

And "on balance", prosecutors tend to overreach in terms of what charges they file/sentences they suggest when it comes to high profile cases. Judges have the ability to reduce the sentencing structure or suggest alternatives to the juries.

I'm not going to say that I think there should be no jailtime here, but I really think this case is being played up for publicity's sake as a "class warfare" thing. There is every chance that the sentencing given by the judge here was as harsh as it could be considering the evidence presented by the prosecution and the prosecution overreaching in terms of what charges they filed.

**Manchu**

No, Kan, that's not how prosecution works in the real world.

**Frazzled**

Kanluwen wrote:
KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Hang the kid. State needs to appeal asap.

LOLWAT.

Seriously? "Hang the kid"?

He killed multiple people, so yea actually.

**Kanluwen**

Manchu wrote:
No, Kan, that's not how prosecution works in the real world.

Actually Manchu, yeah. It is.

It is not the rule of thumb certainly but it is not unheard of for the prosecution to overreach in filing charges hoping for a plea bargain rather than it going to court.

**Frazzled**

Manchu wrote:
No, Kan, that's not how prosecution works in the real world.

They only typically overreach if pushing to get a settlement. if they push too much they lose and don't like to lose. They have no incentive to lose or over charge once it actually gets to trial.

**Manchu**

Kanluwen wrote:
Actually Manchu, yeah. It is.

No seriously it's not. Prosecutors in most states (all of the ones I've worked in/have friends who work in them) work with rationalized sentencing guidelines. From the perspective of a lawyer with experience in criminal justice, i can tell that you are talking from ignorance/pop culture.

**KalashnikovMarine**

Frazzled wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Hang the kid. State needs to appeal asap.

LOLWAT.

Seriously? "Hang the kid"?

He killed multiple people, so yea actually.

Just is best found on the end of a rope.

**Overread**

Frazzled wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Hang the kid. State needs to appeal asap.

LOLWAT.

Seriously? "Hang the kid"?

He killed multiple people, so yea actually.

The problem there is that you've then created a duel standard - do not kill is the law; but on the flip side the law is then killing people. You've also got the risk that by continuing the killing you've now created two parties who have lost loved ones and that might well spark further criminal activity between those two groups (as more revenge takes place).

Also death sentences don't stop crime; accidental or unintentional crime isn't stopped by it at all and planned criminal activity nearly always works with the idea that they will get away with it (ergo the punishment doesn't matter because they won't get caught). In the wider scope of things you also introduce great risk that if you wrongly accuse someone and prosecute them suddenly you've had someone hanged for a crime that they did not commit - and you can't restore that one bit if you find out a week - year - two years - ten years down the line.

**Manchu**

Overread wrote:
do not kill is the law; but on the flip side the law is then killing people

The law provides that individuals qua individuals may not kill; it does not provide that the (persons acting on behalf of the) state may not kill.

Overread wrote:
Also death sentences don't stop crime

There are two kinds of deterrence, specific and general. Whether capital punishment deters crime generally is controversial. (I would argue that general deterrence is not the only or even main reason for capital punishment.) Specific deterrence, on the other hand, is a question of whether the particular convict will commit the same crime again. There is no controversy about the efficacy of the death penalty in that regard.

**KalashnikovMarine**

Dual standard

Killing is perfectly fine under the right conditions. The law is do not murder, which is unlawful killing.

Also it's not about prevetion of initial crimes, but we sure as hell can stop reoffenders.

**Co'tor Shas**

Manchu wrote:
Overread wrote:
do not kill is the law; but on the flip side the law is then killing people
The law provides that individuals qua individuals may not kill; it does not provide that the (persons acting on behalf of the) state may not kill.
Overread wrote:
Also death sentences don't stop crime
There are two kinds of deterrence, specific and general. Whether capital punishment deters crime generally is controversial. (I would argue that general deterrence is not the only or even main reason for capital punishment.) Specific deterrence, on the other hand, is a question of whether the particular convict will commit the same crime again. There is no controversy about the efficacy of the death penalty in that regard.

I give no opinion, but I must post this.

(This is someone talking to the hangman that is about to hang him.)
'Do you really think all this deters crime, Mr Trooper?'
'Well, in the generality of things I'd say it's hard to tell, given that it's hard to find evidence of crimes not committed,' said the hangman, giving the trapdoor a final rattle. 'But in the specificality, sir, I'd say it's very efficacious.'
'Meaning what?'
'Meaning I've never seen someone up here more'n once, sir."

(from Going Postal by Terry Pratchett)