CDZ What is up with this business about affluenza?

[320 Years of History]

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.

Red:
Well, that's good, for I am not entreating for much of an argument. LOL Discussion is all I'm looking for in this thread.

Blue:
Well, okay. I feel differently because the rates of recidivism are high enough that "many people" is so because of the size of our population, not because of the odds of miscreants successfully "keeping their noses clean" while on probation.

Green:
In no way am I opposed to the thematic implication of your remarks as goes the value of a living human's life.

Purple:
Well, isn't that what most if not all all parents do? At least if they can? It's certainly what I did for my kids. Granted they managed to behave responsibly enough so that they neither accidentally nor willfully harmed another person. That I "sheltered" them from certain negative consequences may be merely serendipitous insofar as I knew what "stupid-sh*t" they were entertaining at various points and was able and willing to stop them from doing it or able to direct adverse consequences of doing it away from them. Perhaps the fates just didn't smile on that boy's parents as they did on me?

Truly, in my mind, if there's anyone to have been held accountable for the boy's behavior, it's his parents. I certainly feel that by age 16, a child should have more responsibly and ethical structure in themselves that they don't kill other people. However, as minors, that they don't is nonetheless their parents' fault not theirs. At 18, it becomes the individual's fault. For better or worse, right or wrong, or somewhere on the spectrum between either of those two extremes, upon reaching majority, one is presumed "to know better" and with that presumption, short of being mentally abridged, there is nobody else to blame for one's misdeeds, at least the ones akin to major crimes.

 

[FA_Q2]

Blue:

Well, okay. I feel differently because the rates of recidivism are high enough that "many people" is so because of the size of our population, not because of the odds of miscreants successfully "keeping their noses clean" while on probation.

Your point seemed directly aimed at minors going through probation. You have not established that the rate of recidivism is significantly different with minors. Recidivism is pretty high in general across the entire spectrum.

Bureau of Justice Statistics Identity Theft Reported by Households, 2005-2010

“More than a third (37 percent) of prisoners who were arrested within five years of release were arrested within the first six months after release, with more than half (57 percent) arrested by the end of the first year.”



WaTech ASM Service


A look through this shows that there really is not much of a difference between rates for adults or minors. Of interest is that parole does not seem to change the outcome from non-parole inmates though I think that misses the mark somewhat on why we use parole in the first place (essentially to reduce the cost of fully imprisoning these people to begin with). There is a debate here on whether or not parole should exist at all but I did see that as your point in your post.

Green:

In no way am I opposed to the thematic implication of your remarks as goes the value of a living human's life.

I have no idea what you are getting at here. It was not ‘thematic’ and lives having ‘value’ really does not matter to the point. He killed and received nothing from the judicial system.

Purple:

Well, isn't that what most if not all all parents do? At least if they can? It's certainly what I did for my kids. Granted they managed to behave responsibly enough so that they neither accidentally nor willfully harmed another person. That I "sheltered" them from certain negative consequences may be merely serendipitous insofar as I knew what "stupid-sh*t" they were entertaining at various points and was able and willing to stop them from doing it or able to direct adverse consequences of doing it away from them. Perhaps the fates just didn't smile on that boy's parents as they did on me?

No, it is most certainly not what most parents do. Parents set and use consequences for their children’s actions. My children are not allowed to do many things and are punished when they do not do them. They are also told no all the time when asking to do things that I deem should not be done.


You may prevent them from coming across negative consequences that are life altering (such as running into a busy road) but that is not sheltering them from consequences. Typically those actions come with other consequences that teach the lesson without someone being forever injured.


The argument they were making is that he had no consequences at all and therefore never understood right and wrong. We have all seen the children that were treated this way. Even the psychologist that testified in the case lamented using the term that he did going as far as stating that we used to call these children ‘spoiled rotten brats.’

Truly, in my mind, if there's anyone to have been held accountable for the boy's behavior, it's his parents. I certainly feel that by age 16, a child should have more responsibly and ethical structure in themselves that they don't kill other people. However, as minors, that they don't is nonetheless their parents' fault not theirs. At 18, it becomes the individual's fault. For better or worse, right or wrong, or somewhere on the spectrum between either of those two extremes, upon reaching majority, one is presumed "to know better" and with that presumption, short of being mentally abridged, there is nobody else to blame for one's misdeeds, at least the ones akin to major crimes.

Certainly they should hold some accountability but accountability is not an all or nothing proposition. Their culpability, however, does not relieve the individual themselves of responsibility. At the end of the day, he is the one that willfully caused the deaths 4 individuals. Being a minor does not simply relieve you of all responsibility no matter what your actions and to say so is very extreme. You do not simply become aware at 18 – everyone knows this and that is why there is a spectrum of treatments throughout the judicial system. Just because you are not tried as an adult does not mean that you do not do time. Our judicial system is not so asinine that it constrains itself beyond reason when faced with someone that is not quite yet 18 but also does something heinous.



There is a juvenile detention for a reason and it clearly should have been utilized in this case.

 

[bodecea]

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

Throw his mother in prison too.