Affluenza defense?

[Slash-LN]

This kind of thing bugs the hell out of me.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/11/us/texas-teen-dwi-wreck/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

A 16 year old got drunk and crashed his truck killing 4 people who were standing on the side of the road and also injuring two people that were in the bed of his truck.

The judge sentenced him to 10 years probation. His reasoning?

According to the defense lawyer the kid is a victim of "affluenza" which basically his parents are wealthy and never set limits for him. He's being called a victim who needs treatment.

Can anyone make a case where this is at all justified? Why does the family being wealthy have anything to do with the fact that this kid killed 4 people? If it was a poor kid would they have gone to prison for this?

To me this whole thing is bullshit and I hate seeing this stuff in the news.

What are your views on this?

 

[klunderbunker]

If I'm the judge in this case, here's what I'd do: lock the parents up. If they've done such a horrible job raising a 16 year old that he's the reason four people are dead, they should be punished for it. After all, the driver was a minor and the parents are responsible, so why in the world shouldn't that be the case?

Another article says the layman's definition of this is "he was a spoiled brat." That's about right for the most part, as apparently the defense said "well he's rich, so he had no idea this could happen." The fact that this is the explanation given to the families and loved ones of the victims is highly, highly disturbing and hopefully leads to a massive civil suit.

 

[Mustang Sally]

Apparently, if you're either too rich ("affluenza") or too poor ("povfluenza?") in this country, there are special dispensations for those who do wrong. Either way, it's the middle class that has to pay the for the bulk of this stuff, either as victims, taxpayers or scapegoats.

I'm with KB as far as locking the parents up if it's deemed to be their fault that this happened in the first place. If they were responsible for their kid being overprivileged, maybe some of their own privileges should be taken away, no?

The kid? Ten years probation will be something he can brag about to his buddies. The condition that violating probation could subject him to up to 10 years of incarceration similarly makes me wonder what it would take for him to actually incur that penalty. If he did something to warrant a hearing, would he get the same benefit of the doubt once again? Who knows?: maybe the judge is a member of the same country club as the kid's parents.

Of course, there's also the chance that what he did will have a greater effect on the kid than anything the legal system could do to him. I'd like to think that ending the lives of four people might just be enough to jolt him a bit.

One can always hope.

 

[Slyfox696]

I haven't followed the case, but I hope the sentencing had nothing to do with the type of defense, but rather the age and remorse from the child.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

In all honesty, this sounds like something you'd hear on an episode of Law & Order. For all intents & purposes, the defense of this kid was that he's been such a rich & spoiled brat that's a victim of negligent parents. I saw this yesterday on CNN and I'd have laughed if it wasn't so ludicrous.

I think that is as a gross miscarriage of justice and the notion that this sort of defense was even allowed infuriates me. I've seen numerous examples of the system essentially throwing the book at people for far less than what this kid did. Generally speaking, however, it seems like he's being let off with a slap on the wrist simply for being a spoiled rich kid. And yes, 10 years probation for killing four people while driving under the influence is very, very much a slap on the wrist. Essentially, it sounds as though they've come up with a new medical disorder; one that, conveniently, can really only be applied to the wealthy.

The one potential upside of this is that, if they choose to, the families should be able to file a massive civil suit against the parents. Since the defense basically claims that the parents are responsible, in some ways, due to not setting boundaries for their son, it's ammo that can be used for what could be a slam dunk case.

 

[Cena's Little Helper]

This kind of thing bugs the hell out of me.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/11/us/texas-teen-dwi-wreck/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

A 16 year old got drunk and crashed his truck killing 4 people who were standing on the side of the road and also injuring two people that were in the bed of his truck.

The judge sentenced him to 10 years probation. His reasoning?

According to the defense lawyer the kid is a victim of "affluenza" which basically his parents are wealthy and never set limits for him. He's being called a victim who needs treatment.

Can anyone make a case where this is at all justified? Why does the family being wealthy have anything to do with the fact that this kid killed 4 people? If it was a poor kid would they have gone to prison for this?

To me this whole thing is bullshit and I hate seeing this stuff in the news.

What are your views on this?

I can make a case for this but I would have never, ever accepted "affluenza" as a defense. Whether or not you want to admit it, kids at both extremes of the wealth spectrum are at risk for a shitty upbringing. If you're impoverished, it's more than likely going to be the case that you're not going to have much parental guidance since your mother (I won't even include fathers here as they more than likely won't even be around regardless of their race) is going to working her ass off for a slave's wage or trying to cope with extreme misery through unhealthy means. If you're really rich, then you're probably from old money (i.e., money that has been passed down from at least a generation before your parents) and your parents attempt to fix problems by throwing money at it. If you give your parents the slightest bit of resistance, then they're just going to pass you off to a modern-day indentured servant in the form of a nanny or housekeeper.

The kid who was responsible for the death of these people more than likely has a non-existent moral compass, and this is at least partly attributable to his upbringing. However, I only say upbringing because attributing his actions to "affluenza" severely discriminates against poor kids with a similarly non-existent moral compass that is partly attributable to an upbringing that is ostensibly different but just as harmful. This is the only thing that truly pisses me off about this case.

 

[LSN80]

So the judge, and/or the boy's defense in this case, is saying that it's not the boy's fault for what he did because he was given everything, and not had limits set for him? Hence, this would mean that mentally, he didn't know what he was doing is wrong. That, in and of itself, is horsecrap, because unless someone is a sociopath, they know what they're doing is wrong. Rather, they find themselves untouchable because regardless of past behavior, they've never known true consequences. So he drives drunk? No big deal, as at worst, he figures, he'll get pulled over and cited for driving drunk, but mom and dad will bail him out, just like every other time. And essentially, they did here as well, didn't they? Because it was their lack of supervision and past consequences, which the judge bought, that caused this whole mess in the first place.

There's no going back now, so unfortunately, the judge can't lock his parents up now, although there seems to be an awful good case here for parental neglect. What I think would be just, and not far-reaching, either, would be for the family that's left of the people who were killed to sue to affluent couple poor, so they can never buy their son's way out of anything again.

Because when it breaks down, that's essentially what happened here. I would have arrested them if I were the police, and put them in jail if possible, but since it seems that phase is over now, they can hopefully be gotten civilly, and to the point where they're destitute and can never 'purchase away' right and wrong behavior. That way, both their son and they will have to learn consequences for their actions.

 

[H33LTurn]

Initially, I reserved judgement because I wanted to know if affluenza was a legitimate condition. Its perfectly understandable that someone who's incredibly privileged, incredibly young, and incredibly naive to negative consequences could be unaware of the circumstances that surround committing a crime. Ones upbringing can definitely numb a person to responsibility. However, its become apparent that affluenza is junk science.
http://ideas.time.com/2013/12/14/psychologist-affluenza-is-junk-science/

Its always difficult to pass judgement when someone is young and has clearly been raised by irresponsible parents, but the judge's ruling was entirely too lenient. If the kid's problem is that he doesn't understand the consequences of his actions, lets teach him that lesson through the justice system. This young man committed a heinous crime and to give him a slap on the wrist is an insult to all of those incarcerated by our justice system for victimless crimes.

 

[JGlass]

Affluenza is the biggest bullshit I've ever heard. Basically, because he believed he wasn't responsible for anything he did, that allows him to literally get away with murder? What about people with other disorders that make them feel as though they aren't responsible for their actions? People with powerful delusions, schizophrenia, or other disorders are at least sentenced to mental facilities where they can be rehabilitated. Why didn't this kid get the same treatment? Answer: Because affluenza is bullshit.

I can only hope karma gets back to this kid. I hope that everyday the fact that four people that used to be alive are no longer thanks to him. I hope it keeps him up at night. I have no sympathy for this kid or his family.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

Extremely dangerous. This basically boils down to the fact the kid had little to no parental guidance in his life.

Were is that defense for the multitude of unwealthy youth defendants? Lack of guidance and limitations is about parenting, not money.