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.

 Ouze wrote:

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.

 Orlanth wrote:

 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.

 Ouze wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

 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.

Agreed. This kid needs some serious psychiatric care.

 Ouze wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

 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.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

 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.

He deliberately drove while drunk. That is the same as deliberately ramming the victims.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

 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:

 Orlanth wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

 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.

"They have so much money, they need to pay."

This remark feels very wrong.

 Orlanth wrote:


'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.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:


'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

DutchWinsAll wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:


'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.

Anyone that drinks and owns a car has driven when they shouldn't have at least once.

Wow, that is a really interesting view you have there. Are you really accusing everybody who drinks and owns a car of drunk driving?

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.

 Breotan wrote:

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.

Steelmage99 wrote:
"They have so much money, they need to pay."

This remark feels very wrong.

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).

Relapse wrote:


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.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:


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.

 Ouze wrote:

 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).

 Orlanth wrote:

 Breotan wrote:

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.

Relapse wrote:

 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.

Other than having a good lawyer, what does just being rich do? Let you pay fines a little easier?

 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.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 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.