Drunk driver who killed 4 let off for being "too rich"

[Paulina]

Article from CNN

Article from the Daily Mail

TLDR Version: Back in June, a 16-year-old boy named Ethan Couch was driving a group of friends in a pick-up truck owned by his father's company. He had a blood-alcohol level three times the adult legal limit (although, at 16, it was illegal for him to drink at all). An SUV was broken down on the side of the road, and four people (a youth pastor, a mother and daughter, and a 24-year-old woman) had stopped to help. Couch careened off the road and slammed into the group, killing all four bystanders and permanently paralyzing his friend, passenger Sergio Molina.

At his trial, psychologist Gary Miller testified that Couch was not accountable for his actions, as he suffered from "affluenza" -- the condition of being coddled by wealthy parents. Due to his pampered upbringing, Dr. Miller argued that Couch could not have realized the consequences of his actions, and should be exempt from jail. The maximum jail sentence for a minor in this case was 20 years in prison. Couch was sentenced 10 years probation and no jail time.

In the wake of the trial, according to the Daily Mail, "Couch will receive his counseling at a 'country club'-style treatment center, with a price tag of $450,000 per year that features equine therapy and organic menu options," to be paid for by his father.

Thoughts?

Edited December 14, 2013 by Paulina

[BrightBow]

Well, above all else I am not going to trust a tabloid newspaper.

[Paulina]

Sorry about that. Here's the story from CNN.

[Brendor]

-shrugs-

Does it really matter what we think? Regardless of whether we're outraged or pleased or indifferent that's not going to change anything.

[Phoenix Wright]

"affluenza"

so having shitty parents is a defense for crimes now?

[BrightBow]

Thanks.

I got to say, I do find tat hard to believe.

Because what I just read in the always trustworthy Wikipedia doesn't sound like Affluence is an official term. It's described as "a term used by critics of consumerism".

So it confuses me how it could have been used to affect the extend of his punishment if he wasn't officially diagnosed.

Edited December 14, 2013 by BrightBow

[Paulina]

Had to do one more edit. Apparently the youth pastor wasn't the driver of the broken down car, but another person who had stopped to help.

[Esau of Isaac]

-shrugs-

Does it really matter what we think? Regardless of whether we're outraged or pleased or indifferent that's not going to change anything.

And that is why injustice like this is allowed to happen

[Naughx]

"Not criminally responsible due to a mental disorder."

That BS alway happens here.

Well atleast sometimes there is a second trial:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/guy-turcotte-charged-again-with-1st-degree-murder-1.2426182

Edited December 14, 2013 by Naughx

[Monde]

And that is why injustice like this is allowed to happen

Exactly,but If we don't do anything about it, then even worse injustices could happen in the future.

Edited December 14, 2013 by Monde

[Parrhesia]

All I can hope for is that in his next horrific car accident, he only kills himself.

Also, 'he doesn't understand consequences, so let's let him off the fucking hook' I mean that just really shits me, you know? That psychiatrist should be fucking ashamed.

Edited December 14, 2013 by Parrhesia

[Paulina]

As Cenk Uygur said on TYT, it's so ironic that they used this defense to get this verdict. Because Couch had a privileged lifestyle and wasn't accustomed to consequences for bad behavior, let's perpetuate his ignorance by giving him no consequences for this behavior.

I'm wondering if there is some sort of organization that campaigns for harsher sentencing of wealthy people.

Edited December 14, 2013 by Paulina

[eclipse]

I'm surprised he wasn't charged for stealing the beer (can't tell whether or not this was considered as part of the sentence, though I wish it was).

[dondon151]

i think a bigger factor in the sentence was not the bullshit psychological assessment, but merely the defendant's age.

[Rehab]

..Affluenza isn't a literal disease, it's a portmanteau that made a catchy title for a book that criticized the spread of U.S. style consumerism

It's not even literally a critique of "rich people," the thrust of its critique is "people compulsively buy shit to feel rich because of dumb parts of our culture"

You're all fucking fired

Although, I think it's a little inaccurate to say he was let off as in he faced no consequences, he's being forced into rehab (nyuck nyuck etc.) and on probation and his parents have to pay enough to put, like, 4 people through college.

I definitely think it's shitty that he literally didn't have to go to jail where so many other people have (including, although to a lesser degree, minors) because his parents could afford hella lawyers and had a bunch more left to throw away, but part of the problem I think it all highlights is that most criminal punishment, which is suffered much more often and much more harshly by poor people than by anyone else, especially in the U.S., doesn't really give two shits about rehabilitation or recidivism or reconciliation, it's just "ruin one more person's life (far as the odds go), why the hell not"

(not that there's not a strong argument for ruining this guy's life in turn to be made, just that there's more to be mad at than just the geniuses at his trial)

@dondon: also probably that. although it brings to mind some shit like kids younger than ten being charged as adults for gun violence and the like

Edited December 16, 2013 by Rehab

[dondon151]

@dondon: also probably that. although it brings to mind some shit like kids younger than ten being charged as adults for gun violence and the like

yes, but there is a difference between DWI manslaughter and homicide.

EDIT: i think that in the long run, rehabilitation would be much better than a 20-year prison sentence, but i somewhat doubt the efficacy of the rehabilitation system, and it still reeks of inadequate punishment, especially when the location of rehabilitation is kind of a wealthy parents' choice.

Edited December 14, 2013 by dondon151

[Rewjeo]

"Affluenza" sounds like a pretty good explanation for why this happened, but it's in no way an excuse. That much should be obvious to everyone.

But I do feel like not punishing him more severely may still be entirely fair. He might feel guilty enough about it that any other punishment won't accomplish anything. That's not the explanation that was given, though, so I have no idea if that's at all accurate.

[Zerker]

I doubt being ignorant of the law is an excuse, but okay, whatever.

[FrostyFireMage]

Come on guys, being rich is a serious mental health issue.

[Rapier]

All I can hope for is that in his next horrific car accident, he only kills himself.

Also, 'he doesn't understand consequences, so let's let him off the fucking hook' I mean that just really shits me, you know? That psychiatrist should be fucking ashamed.

Dismissal of guilt pisses me off as well. It's imperative that you understand the consequences if you hope to live in a damn democratic system. Being ignorant is not an excuse.

"Affluenza" sounds like a pretty good explanation for why this happened, but it's in no way an excuse. That much should be obvious to everyone.

But I do feel like not punishing him more severely may still be entirely fair. He might feel guilty enough about it that any other punishment won't accomplish anything. That's not the explanation that was given, though, so I have no idea if that's at all accurate.

Making him feel guilty or not over it is not the point. He committed a crime and should pay for it, like everyone else. Being a pampered brat is not even an excuse.

It is precisely this dismissal of guilt/punishment that promoves incidents like this, by the way.

[Rewjeo]

Making him feel guilty or not over it is not the point. He committed a crime and should pay for it, like everyone else. Being a pampered brat is not even an excuse.

It is precisely this dismissal of guilt/punishment that promoves incidents like this, by the way.

I said that "being a pampered brat" is not an excuse for the crime. But what's the purpose of the justice system? Is it not possible that putting someone in jail for years is not always the answer? I don't know more about this story than that a drunk rich kid killed people in a car crash, and within that context almost anything is possible. Maybe he is a menace to society and should be locked away forever. Maybe putting him in jail won't accomplish anything. Regardless, "affluenza" is a terrible excuse for manslaughter and should never have worked for obvious reasons.

[Rapier]

I said that "being a pampered brat" is not an excuse for the crime. But what's the purpose of the justice system? Is it not possible that putting someone in jail for years is not always the answer? I don't know more about this story than that a drunk rich kid killed people in a car crash, and within that context almost anything is possible. Maybe he is a menace to society and should be locked away forever. Maybe putting him in jail won't accomplish anything. Regardless, "affluenza" is a terrible excuse for manslaughter and should never have worked for obvious reasons.

Maybe it won't, but not doing so is the same as adding an exception to the rule, feeding the dismissal of guilt and weakening the constitution, something that should not happen if the society wants to preserve its laws and integrity.

I also don't see how he couldn't get psychological attention/treatment and serve his complete sentence.

That being said, I'm at least glad that in the USA someone can get arrested, even if said person is -18. In some countries, they receive some treatment and are dismissed when they reach 18, with their criminal profiles cleaned.

[Rehab]

The United States actually has a rather large problem, for a country that has as much money and pride as the U.S. does, with overcrowded prisons and overly aggressive sentences, even for lesser crimes than this (we have a lot of "for-profit prisons," and they're basically awful). In some cases, we hang onto like parts of our system despite high rates of recidivism (people going back to jail after getting out, especially for the same thing), even when other places that have a less harsh set of laws/punishments for the same thing seem to see results that correlate to less recidivism and/or fewer people committing the crime+getting arrested in the first place.

"Having harsher laws and enforcement," statistically, doesn't actually seem to correlate well with "less crime" or "more efficient conflict resolution," or at least not universally.

This idiot's case looks more to me like a farce of an outlier with the local judiciary as the star than anything else, though rich people are indeed often able to get out of legal punishment, or at least reduce its harshness, by throwing money and lawyers everywhere.

Edited December 14, 2013 by Rehab

[Constable Reggie]

That judge sure has an interesting sense of irony.

edit: damnit i should probably read the thread so I would have known someone else already brought this up

Edited December 15, 2013 by Constable Reggie

[Esau of Isaac]

REGGIE LIVES OH MAI GAH