Surprised the affluenza case hasn't been brought up yet

[JoeyBoy718]

Rich white 16 year old kid in Texas kills 4 people and paralyzes one people in a DUI with a BAC 3 times the legal limit. Judge lets him off with no jail time, 10 years probation, and a year at a "resort" rehabilitation center (with cooking classes, martial arts, yoga and nutritional therapy). His defense, supported by an "expert" psychologist was that he had "affluenza" disease, which means his parents were SO RICH that they failed to teach him the difference between right and wrong. His dad owns some metal company in Northern Texas and makes over 10 million a year. The judge who sentenced him in the past has sentenced a 14 year old black kid to 10 years for punching someone and a poor 14 year old white kid to 6 years for smoking weed.

 

[Hoofbite]

So split the death toll between the 2 parents and let them spend the rest of their lives in jail.

This case is absolutely disgusting. I've been following it a little bit. I think the judge should be relieved of his duties.

 

[Bigdog]

I heard about this case and could not believe that a board certified psychologist would come up with this. It is not even in the DSM-V I believe. It also is absurd that judge actually believed that the disease existed. Educated people making some very dumb decisions.

 

[Wheeltax]

Pretty amazing. So what if he didn't know there were consequences for his actions? He still committed those actions, his wealth and privilege doesn't excuse that. You don't excuse a poor person for stealing - circumstances don't matter. That's the whole point.

All I know is, if I ever get in legal trouble I'm looking up that kid's defense attorney.

 

[arglebargle]

Lots of money, family connections, etc, have always been able to get someone a slide. This one is pretty ludicrous on its face. Of course, sending someone to youth prison in Texas is most likely to yield a career criminal.

 

[joseephuss]

Sounds like a real disease to me. He just got away with murder because his parents are rich and still doesn't know right from wrong. You can guarantee this young man will be in trouble in the future and will be back in court again in a few years. The judge made sure the kid hasn't learned his lesson.

 

[visionary]

There are people on this very board who have argued with me that DUI is no bug deal as in "which of us hasn't done it " so they must be pretty happy to read this guy got off

 

[joseephuss]

There are people on this very board who have argued with me that DUI is no bug deal as in "which of us hasn't done it " so they must be pretty happy to read this guy got off

Yep and it is a silly argument. It totally disregards that even though they think most people have driven while intoxicated not many people of actually killed others due to their impaired driving. Just a slight difference that they can't see past and like you said they are probably happy this kid got away with it.

 

[visionary]

Yep and it is a silly argument. It totally disregards that even though they think most people have driven while intoxicated not many people of actually killed others due to their impaired driving. Just a slight difference that they can't see past and like you said they are probably happy this kid got away with it.

Yep, talk about silly arguments and you are sure to come up with one

Shoot someone in the leg and chances are they will live so that should be OK too in your world

 

[joseephuss]

Yep, talk about silly arguments and you are sure to come up with one

Shoot someone in the leg and chances are they will live so that should be OK too in your world

What are you talking about? I agreed with you. Drinking and driving is bad and actually hurting or killing someone because of it is worse. Just because everyone does it(which isn't even true) doesn't make it okay to kill someone.

 

[visionary]

What are you talking about? I agreed with you. Drinking and driving is bad and actually hurting or killing someone because of it is worse. Just because everyone does it(which isn't even true) doesn't make it okay to kill someone.

My bad
Thought you were being sarcastic

 

[Teren_Kanan]

Not sure how I feel about this really.
The defense was laughable at best, and his sentence compared to what others get with lesser crimes is also laughable. Strings were OBVIOUSLY pulled by said rich parents which is also awful.

That being said, I've never really seen the purpose or positive that comes from sticking someone in jail for years, especially in situations like this. It doesn't do anything for the family of the dead except maybe quench some of their rage, certainly doesn't do anything constructive for the person who caused the wreck. Sticking someone like that in jail for 10+ years isn't going to make him come out as a better person. Our system just doesn't work like that. Not sure what punishment would fit this type of horrific accident, but nothing positive comes from jail time. Though this is more of a rant on our current awful criminal/court system than anything pertaining to this case in general.

I almost feel like the kids parents should receive a harsh punishment for being crap parents.

 

[joseephuss]

Not sure how I feel about this really.
The defense was laughable at best, and his sentence compared to what others get with lesser crimes is also laughable. Strings were OBVIOUSLY pulled by said rich parents which is also awful.

That being said, I've never really seen the purpose or positive that comes from sticking someone in jail for years, especially in situations like this. It doesn't do anything for the family of the dead except maybe quench some of their rage, certainly doesn't do anything constructive for the person who caused the wreck. Sticking someone like that in jail for 10+ years isn't going to make him come out as a better person. Our system just doesn't work like that. Not sure what punishment would fit this type of horrific accident, but nothing positive comes from jail time. Though this is more of a rant on our current awful criminal/court system than anything pertaining to this case in general.

I almost feel like the kids parents should receive a harsh punishment for being crap parents.

It would prevent him from driving drunk during the time he is in jail.

Even if he isn't sentenced to jail, there is no good alternative setup that would be constructive for the kid to become a better person. I am a believer in rehabilitation, but I don't think the system is set up to do just that whether within the prison system or outside of it. With that being the case, at least some jail time would send some sort of message to the kid. He is receiving no message by this judge except the one he has received his whole life that he can get away with anything.

 

[vta]

Not sure how I feel about this really.
The defense was laughable at best, and his sentence compared to what others get with lesser crimes is also laughable. Strings were OBVIOUSLY pulled by said rich parents which is also awful.

That being said, I've never really seen the purpose or positive that comes from sticking someone in jail for years, especially in situations like this. It doesn't do anything for the family of the dead except maybe quench some of their rage, certainly doesn't do anything constructive for the person who caused the wreck. Sticking someone like that in jail for 10+ years isn't going to make him come out as a better person. Our system just doesn't work like that. Not sure what punishment would fit this type of horrific accident, but nothing positive comes from jail time. Though this is more of a rant on our current awful criminal/court system than anything pertaining to this case in general.

I almost feel like the kids parents should receive a harsh punishment for being crap parents.

Lessons are learned through loss. Let him lose a good junk of his most precious time of life and the lesson will be invaluable. The value of life is probably only best measured when personal loss is experienced. Unless he's entirely obstinate and then well, the punishment fits the crime. Either way, I don't think our judicial system is in the business of making better people, it's about justification for the people who are wronged.

 

[erickb]

This is the "product of my environment" defense, normally used when people come from poor backgrounds I don't like either one and I think people should be punished for their crimes, BUT you can't be ok with one without being ok with the other IMO and NO it's not in the DSM any version and my wife is blown away that it was allowed (been in the mental health/social work field for a long time)

 

[BigStar]

Not sure how I feel about this really.
The defense was laughable at best, and his sentence compared to what others get with lesser crimes is also laughable. Strings were OBVIOUSLY pulled by said rich parents which is also awful.

That being said, I've never really seen the purpose or positive that comes from sticking someone in jail for years, especially in situations like this. It doesn't do anything for the family of the dead except maybe quench some of their rage, certainly doesn't do anything constructive for the person who caused the wreck. Sticking someone like that in jail for 10+ years isn't going to make him come out as a better person. Our system just doesn't work like that. Not sure what punishment would fit this type of horrific accident, but nothing positive comes from jail time. Though this is more of a rant on our current awful criminal/court system than anything pertaining to this case in general.

I almost feel like the kids parents should receive a harsh punishment for being crap parents.[/quote

I agree to an extent in that this kid should do time for taking life, etc.. but his time would not be served in a maximum facility. This is where common sense in our justice system is sorely needed in order to properly punish offenders for crimes, how the crime effected society or the victim, and whether the offender poses a societal threat or possible recidivism for their crimes (sexual offenders/violent anti-social offenders, gang affiliates). This is mainly applied to drug possession, child support, driving offenses, some smaller property crimes (life for shoplifting via 3rd strike) etc.. This kid should serve time in a minimal security facility that denies him his freedom for a considerable length of time. He is not a violent offender, or does he pose a physical threat to other inmates or society (if not behind the wheel).

Gangs run most of the local and county jails, and "all" of the maximum facility prisons. All of these facilities are orchestrated for gang affiliation or segregation for the prison population to simplify the housing/segregation process for the staff (understandable) in order to maintain some semblance of control and to maintain prison costs. None of this structure is aimed at decreasing recidivism or decreasing the future prison population(s

 

[Hoofbite]

This is the "product of my environment" defense, normally used when people come from poor backgrounds I don't like either one and I think people should be punished for their crimes, BUT you can't be ok with one without being ok with the other IMO and NO it's not in the DSM any version and my wife is blown away that it was allowed (been in the mental health/social work field for a long time)

Even if it was in the DSM it's a worthless argument.

You need not have parents teach you right from wrong because the law tells you exactly what is right and wrong in this case.

Without any sort of question of competency, being oblivious to what is right or wrong should be laughed out of court.

 

[BigStar]

Even if it was in the DSM it's a worthless argument.

You need not have parents teach you right from wrong because the law tells you exactly what is right and wrong in this case.

Without any sort of question of competency, being oblivious to what is right or wrong should be laughed out of court.

Yeah, since when has ignorance to the law not made one accountable to it? I always found it odd that the discrepancies in state laws, especially states that border each other, can't even be taken into account. Why should this be an exception. The same excuse has been used by sociologists to justify why the poor commit more crime, etc. and the courts don't accept this as justifiable reasoning.

 

[Bigdog]

Even if it was in the DSM it's a worthless argument.

You need not have parents teach you right from wrong because the law tells you exactly what is right and wrong in this case.

Without any sort of question of competency, being oblivious to what is right or wrong should be laughed out of court.

No but the DSM V is the diagnostic mannuel that is put together by board certified psychiatrists, physicians, and clinicians for mental disorders. It is book that all psychiatrists, psychologists, and clinicians use to diagnosed mental disorders. In this case, if it was in the DSM V as a legitimate disorder , the defense can argue that he has a mental condition. Personally, this is a bogus disease and like you said the parents need to teach this kid from right from wrong or he needs to face the consequences which he did not. The consequences were too lenient in my opinion.

 

[joseephuss]

No but the DSM V is the diagnostic mannuel that is put together by board certified psychiatrists, physicians, and clinicians for mental disorders. It is book that all psychiatrists, psychologists, and clinicians use to diagnosed mental disorders. In this case, if it was in the DSM V as a legitimate disorder , the defense can argue that he has a mental condition. Personally, this is a bogus disease and like you said the parents need to teach this kid from right from wrong or he needs to face the consequences which he did not. The consequences were too lenient in my opinion.

The parents would first have to care about what is right and wrong. They and he know that what happened is wrong. They just don't care. They just want him to get away with it. They would have a different view if a drunk teenager had killed their son.