CDZ What is up with this business about affluenza?

[320 Years of History]

So I finally got sick and tired of hearing about the boy who claims that affluenza is the reason he got drunk, got behind the wheel of a car, drove it and crashed it, killing others. I looked up "affluenza" and found it defined as "a psychological malaise supposedly affecting wealthy young people, symptoms of which include a lack of motivation, feelings of guilt, and a sense of isolation." Well, at least the definition says "supposedly affecting." LOL That's about all about it that makes any damn sense.

Back in my childhood, plenty of my peers must have also suffered from affluenza. LOL Back then, however, we called it "too much time your hands, more money than you know what to do with, you're irresponsible, and you exhibit poor judgement." Without exception, folks parents knew exactly what the cure was: cut off the cash flow. Trust me, within a month or less, it worked every time. Judging by some of my own kids' peers, the "bacteria" that cause affluenza have not yet become resistant to the very same "drug."

Truly, I don't know which is more ridiculous and astounding....that the Texas boy (or his advocate) had the gall to cite affluenza as the problem, or that the press is actually using that term in headlines for the stories about the boy, thereby giving it some shred of potential credibility, at least in the minds of folks who are just too damn stupid to know any better. Tsk, tsk, tsk. They should be no less ashamed of themselves as that boy.

 

[Jackson]

In my day, they called it a spoiled brat with stupid nonexistent parents.

 

[Arianrhod]

What should be done with a "spoiled brat" who walked away from a charge of vehicular manslaughter with a scolding?

 

[320 Years of History]

What should be done with a "spoiled brat" who walked away from a charge of vehicular manslaughter with a scolding?

I'm not sure that more should be done than was done. The guy was a minor at the time. I don't have a problem with going light on minors. Kids routinely display poor judgment. Would you find it fair were folks to today hold against you the things you did as a kid? I sure wouldn't.

What should not be done is that one should not give credence to his so-called affluenza defence by even mentioning that term.

 

[jillian]

So I finally got sick and tired of hearing about the boy who claims that affluenza is the reason he got drunk, got behind the wheel of a car, drove it and crashed it, killing others. I looked up "affluenza" and found it defined as "a psychological malaise supposedly affecting wealthy young people, symptoms of which include a lack of motivation, feelings of guilt, and a sense of isolation." Well, at least the definition says "supposedly affecting." LOL That's about all about it that makes any damn sense.

Back in my childhood, plenty of my peers must have also suffered from affluenza. LOL Back then, however, we called it "too much time your hands, more money than you know what to do with, you're irresponsible, and you exhibit poor judgement." Without exception, folks parents knew exactly what the cure was: cut off the cash flow. Trust me, within a month or less, it worked every time. Judging by some of my own kids' peers, the "bacteria" that cause affluenza have not yet become resistant to the very same "drug."

Truly, I don't know which is more ridiculous and astounding....that the Texas boy (or his advocate) had the gall to cite affluenza as the problem, or that the press is actually using that term in headlines for the stories about the boy, thereby giving it some shred of potential credibility, at least in the minds of folks who are just too damn stupid to know any better. Tsk, tsk, tsk. They should be no less ashamed of themselves as that boy.

apparently a texas jury bought that nonsense. do you think they'd have ruled the same way for a poor kid who claimed poverty and a lack of "education" as to morals was an excuse for a crime?

I think it's bizarre.

 

[Arianrhod]

What should be done with a "spoiled brat" who walked away from a charge of vehicular manslaughter with a scolding?

I'm not sure that more should be done than was done. The guy was a minor at the time. I don't have a problem with going light on minors. Kids routinely display poor judgment. Would you find it fair were folks to today hold against you the things you did as a kid? I sure wouldn't.

What should not be done is that one should not give credence to his so-called affluenza defence by even mentioning that term.

I never drove drunk, so I wouldn't have plowed into and killed four people and then made up a word as an alibi.

If he were a middle-class kid without familial influence, would the "sentence" have been the same?

 

[waltky]

Ethan Couch extradicted back to the U.S.

Deported 'affluenza' teen booked into Texas detention center
Jan 28,`16 -- The teenager who used an "affluenza" defense in a fatal drunken-driving wreck was booked into a Texas juvenile detention center following his deportation from Mexico on Thursday, more than a month after he and his mother fled the U.S. as prosecutors investigated whether he had violated his probation.

Ethan Couch, 18, arrived at Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport late Thursday morning and could be seen walking through the airport escorted by law enforcement. Couch and his mother were apprehended in the Mexican resort city of Puerto Vallarta on Dec. 28, after a call for pizza delivery tipped off authorities to their whereabouts. Couch initially fought deportation, but he dropped the fight this week. His mother was deported last month. "We've reached a great milestone," Tarrant County Sheriff Dee Anderson said outside the juvenile facility in Fort Worth. "This is a day we've looked forward to, when we have them both here and back under the jurisdiction here. We're hoping that the day comes for justice for the families and the four victims that were killed."

Couch is scheduled for a court hearing Friday where a judge could decide to move him to an adult jail, which Anderson said he would support given the severity of Couch's offenses. Couch also faces a hearing on Feb. 19 to determine whether his case will be transferred to the adult system, where he could face more time behind bars. "He's certainly capable of understanding now what's going on, and I'd feel better if he was there (in an adult jail)," Anderson said.

Authorities believe Couch and his mother fled Texas in her pickup truck in early December, after an online video appeared to show Couch at a party where people were drinking. Couch was sentenced in juvenile court to 10 years of probation for the 2013 wreck that killed four people and injured several others. The terms prohibit him from drinking or leaving Tarrant County, Texas. Couch's attorneys Scott Brown and Reagan Wynn said in a statement Thursday that they are "optimistic" their client will complete his probation term without any further issues. They also predicted the judge would keep Couch in juvenile custody at least until the hearing next month.

MORE

 

[Elvis Obama]

The lawyer who advanced this theory was only doing his job. He isn't paid to be rational, only successful. The jurors who bought it... wow. I'm not sure if the term affluenza was used in courtroom or if it was invented by the press during or after the trial. Either way, his money is now going to be used on bribes to the tough guys on his cell block so they don't beat him up. Or worse.

How many years will he have trimmed off his worthless, drone-like existence? Hopefully the court will have the good sense to throw the book at him this time.

 

[Camp]

The affluenza defense didn't really work. The media jumped on it and credited it to the Judge giving a slap on the wrist for handing out a probation sentence. The diagnosis came from a psychologist and the term is not recognized as a legitimate illness. The jury found the guy guilty and the prosecutor asked for the 20-year sentence. It's was the Judge who ignored the obvious wishes of the jury and prosecutors. It's really just a basic and standard rich kid getting away with murder story if not for the word affluenza getting thrown into the mix. That gave the story some pizzaz and national attention. Judges need a cover for their corruption. Usually, a loophole does the trick. In this case, they had to create a reason, or loophole, for what appeared to be bribery.

 

[Ellison]

The prosecutor wanted a twenty-year sentence for a minor? That seems awfully steep. I realize Texas tends to be a bit strict on laws like this, but it seems odd for the prosecutor to fully throw the book at a minor.

 

[FA_Q2]

What should be done with a "spoiled brat" who walked away from a charge of vehicular manslaughter with a scolding?

I'm not sure that more should be done than was done. The guy was a minor at the time. I don't have a problem with going light on minors. Kids routinely display poor judgment. Would you find it fair were folks to today hold against you the things you did as a kid? I sure wouldn't.

What should not be done is that one should not give credence to his so-called affluenza defence by even mentioning that term.

he should see prison time. The original 'sentence' was a gross miscarriage of justice.

He didn't just exercise poor judgment - he murdered.

 

[Ellison]

he should see prison time. The original 'sentence' was a gross miscarriage of justice.

He didn't just exercise poor judgment - he murdered.

I thought it was manslaughter?

 

[Agit8r]

Rich kids should be held accountable like everyone else. Then maybe they wouldn't keep the antisocial behavior up as adults.

 

[waltky]

Ellison wrote: The prosecutor wanted a twenty-year sentence for a minor? That seems awfully steep.

That's only 5 years per person the lil' sop-head killed...

... pretty lenient if ya think about it...

... Granny says ya must be one o' dem...

... lefty, sop-head sympathizin', bleedin' heart lib'rals.

 

[FA_Q2]

he should see prison time. The original 'sentence' was a gross miscarriage of justice.

He didn't just exercise poor judgment - he murdered.

I thought it was manslaughter?

That is technically correct. The normal legal charge in something like this is vehicular manslaughter if I understand correctly. Texas has it own charge though "intoxication manslaughter"
Intoxication Manslaughter in Texas | Criminal Law

IMHO, that is essentially murder though legal terms are much more precise than what I stated. Either way, I think it is clear that his sentencing was asinine. He received nothing for directly and WILLFULLY causing the deaths of 4 people and injuring another 9.

 

[320 Years of History]

he should see prison time. The original 'sentence' was a gross miscarriage of justice.

He didn't just exercise poor judgment - he murdered.

I thought it was manslaughter?

That is technically correct. The normal legal charge in something like this is vehicular manslaughter if I understand correctly. Texas has it own charge though "intoxication manslaughter"
Intoxication Manslaughter in Texas | Criminal Law

IMHO, that is essentially murder though legal terms are much more precise than what I stated. Either way, I think it is clear that his sentencing was asinine. He received nothing for directly and WILLFULLY causing the deaths of 4 people and injuring another 9.

The fact of that loon's minority is the only thing that gives me the mind to say that his original sentence was acceptable. It's worth noting that in this context, "acceptable" and "right" aren't necessarily the same things. Should the boy have been charged and sentenced as an adult? Maybe, but he wasn't. At some point, one has to realize that the whole point of being deemed a minor is that we recognize minors haven't acquired a full understanding of the entirety of their deeds, nor have they reached the point of being able to comprehensively evaluate them. (Nevermind that daily one can observe that there's no small quantity of adults who also haven't acquired those skills and abilities. LOL)

 

[FA_Q2]

he should see prison time. The original 'sentence' was a gross miscarriage of justice.

He didn't just exercise poor judgment - he murdered.

I thought it was manslaughter?

That is technically correct. The normal legal charge in something like this is vehicular manslaughter if I understand correctly. Texas has it own charge though "intoxication manslaughter"
Intoxication Manslaughter in Texas | Criminal Law

IMHO, that is essentially murder though legal terms are much more precise than what I stated. Either way, I think it is clear that his sentencing was asinine. He received nothing for directly and WILLFULLY causing the deaths of 4 people and injuring another 9.

The fact of that loon's minority is the only thing that gives me the mind to say that his original sentence was acceptable. It's worth noting that in this context, "acceptable" and "right" aren't necessarily the same things. Should the boy have been charged and sentenced as an adult? Maybe, but he wasn't. At some point, one has to realize that the whole point of being deemed a minor is that we recognize minors haven't acquired a full understanding of the entirety of their deeds, nor have they reached the point of being able to comprehensively evaluate them. (Nevermind that daily one can observe that there's no small quantity of adults who also haven't acquired those skills and abilities. LOL)

Sure, as a minor you tend to get a lesser sentence than an adult. There is a vast chasm between the 20 years maximum (and I am not sure if that is per indecent or per charge - I think he could have been sentenced to a maximum of 80 years) and the probation that he actually received.

He should have been given a 10 year sentence at least rather than a 10 year probation.

Now, this is complete complete conjecture on my part so take it as such but I feel that there might very well have been some shenanigans with the judge and the parents in this case. Something simply does not add up.

 

[Moonglow]

he should see prison time. The original 'sentence' was a gross miscarriage of justice.

He didn't just exercise poor judgment - he murdered.

I thought it was manslaughter?

Vehicular manslaughter...

 

[320 Years of History]

he should see prison time. The original 'sentence' was a gross miscarriage of justice.

He didn't just exercise poor judgment - he murdered.

I thought it was manslaughter?

That is technically correct. The normal legal charge in something like this is vehicular manslaughter if I understand correctly. Texas has it own charge though "intoxication manslaughter"
Intoxication Manslaughter in Texas | Criminal Law

IMHO, that is essentially murder though legal terms are much more precise than what I stated. Either way, I think it is clear that his sentencing was asinine. He received nothing for directly and WILLFULLY causing the deaths of 4 people and injuring another 9.

The fact of that loon's minority is the only thing that gives me the mind to say that his original sentence was acceptable. It's worth noting that in this context, "acceptable" and "right" aren't necessarily the same things. Should the boy have been charged and sentenced as an adult? Maybe, but he wasn't. At some point, one has to realize that the whole point of being deemed a minor is that we recognize minors haven't acquired a full understanding of the entirety of their deeds, nor have they reached the point of being able to comprehensively evaluate them. (Nevermind that daily one can observe that there's no small quantity of adults who also haven't acquired those skills and abilities. LOL)

Sure, as a minor you tend to get a lesser sentence than an adult. There is a vast chasm between the 20 years maximum (and I am not sure if that is per indecent or per charge - I think he could have been sentenced to a maximum of 80 years) and the probation that he actually received.

He should have been given a 10 year sentence at least rather than a 10 year probation.

Now, this IS complete complete conjecture on my part so take it as such but I feel that there might very well have been some shenanigans with the judge and the parents in this case. Something simply does not add up.

Red:
There is no denying that chasm exists.

Given minor being minors, however, 10 years of probation may as well be 10 years behind bars. It's expecting quite a lot of a miscreant minor to "keep their nose clean without exception for 10 years."

FWIW, whatever any individual thinks be the "correct" penalty for the boy's crimes, that's their view. I don't particularly take exception with what one might deem as a suitable sentence. I have issues with the way the sentence is explained and justified.

Blue:
I agree with you there; the case certainly doesn't pass the ethical "sniff test." Even so, it may be the case is more akin to Limburger cheese or darien fruit than akin to feces or rotting flesh. I really don't know. All I know is that I think the so-called affluenza defense is B.S. "from the get go," and that I think it deplorable that a judge has allowed such a thing to enter into American jurisprudential precedent.

 

[FA_Q2]

he should see prison time. The original 'sentence' was a gross miscarriage of justice.

He didn't just exercise poor judgment - he murdered.

I thought it was manslaughter?

That is technically correct. The normal legal charge in something like this is vehicular manslaughter if I understand correctly. Texas has it own charge though "intoxication manslaughter"
Intoxication Manslaughter in Texas | Criminal Law

IMHO, that is essentially murder though legal terms are much more precise than what I stated. Either way, I think it is clear that his sentencing was asinine. He received nothing for directly and WILLFULLY causing the deaths of 4 people and injuring another 9.

The fact of that loon's minority is the only thing that gives me the mind to say that his original sentence was acceptable. It's worth noting that in this context, "acceptable" and "right" aren't necessarily the same things. Should the boy have been charged and sentenced as an adult? Maybe, but he wasn't. At some point, one has to realize that the whole point of being deemed a minor is that we recognize minors haven't acquired a full understanding of the entirety of their deeds, nor have they reached the point of being able to comprehensively evaluate them. (Nevermind that daily one can observe that there's no small quantity of adults who also haven't acquired those skills and abilities. LOL)

Sure, as a minor you tend to get a lesser sentence than an adult. There is a vast chasm between the 20 years maximum (and I am not sure if that is per indecent or per charge - I think he could have been sentenced to a maximum of 80 years) and the probation that he actually received.

He should have been given a 10 year sentence at least rather than a 10 year probation.

Now, this IS complete complete conjecture on my part so take it as such but I feel that there might very well have been some shenanigans with the judge and the parents in this case. Something simply does not add up.

Red:
There is no denying that chasm exists.

Given minor being minors, however, 10 years of probation may as well be 10 years behind bars. It's expecting quite a lot of a miscreant minor to "keep their nose clean without exception for 10 years."

FWIW, whatever any individual thinks be the "correct" penalty for the boy's crimes, that's their view. I don't particularly take exception with what one might deem as a suitable sentence. I have issues with the way the sentence is explained and justified.

Blue:
I agree with you there; the case certainly doesn't pass the ethical "sniff test." Even so, it may be the case is more akin to Limburger cheese or darien fruit than akin to feces or rotting flesh. I really don't know. All I know is that I think the so-called affluenza defense is B.S. "from the get go," and that I think it deplorable that a judge has allowed such a thing to enter into American jurisprudential precedent.

Hard to argue with that.

I find both the sentence and the reasoning (and I deplore actually calling it as such) garbage. I don't really claim to know what sentence should have been handed down - the above was an example - but I do claim that there should have been some jail time. I do not believe that it 'might as well have been' as many people go through probation - even at 16 - without significant issues. Here he apparently was not able to but that does not excuse the lax treatment for someone that killed 4 other people.

I would also like to point out the true idiocy in handing down this sentence. The core argument here with 'affluenza' is that his parents gave him everything and insulated him from consequences. Because of that he was unable to determine right from wrong. Then what does the judge do in his sentencing because of that factor? He insulates him from the consequences of his actions! IOW, he continued the exact same process that led to the teen killing 4 individuals in the first place.