"Affluenza" Defense for Vehicular Manslaughter - Teen Gets Probation for 4 Deaths

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I am not emotionally involved in the case in any way so I have no idea why you want to use such emotive language. Very odd. So,. apparently you know the exact circumstances of the case and know for a fact that justice would be better served by putting a 16 year old alcoholic in jail for 10 years or so? Good for you,

I know that 4 people are dead and that the 16 year old killed them. And I know that he's not being held to account for the 4 lives he snuffed out. I find that bothersome. Odd that you're cool with it.

[Peikko 1,575]

I know that 4 people are dead and that the 16 year old killed them. And I know that he's not being held to account for the 4 lives he snuffed out. I find that bothersome. Odd that you're cool with it.

Really, you find it that bothersome you are going to do something about it? Are you going to take a look at the judge's record and see if this particular case is somehow uncharacteristic? Or are you perhaps worried he's a particularly out of touch, liberal judge who should be removed from the bench? What exactly do you think is wrong judicially with this decision? All I can see is this one article making unsubstantiated suggestions that the sentence was inappropriate but nothing to back that up except appeals to the emotions. Should the judicial system be guided by emotional reactions to sentencing? Seems rather a spurious idea to me, but certainly if you can uncover some actual wrong doing, then go for it,

Personally, I can see no reason not to be 'cool' with the decision from a judicial standpoint.

[wayoutofthebox 3]

I know that 4 people are dead and that the 16 year old killed them. And I know that he's not being held to account for the 4 lives he snuffed out. I find that bothersome. Odd that you're cool with it.

I may regret making this post...I probably don't belong here...

I think what "Truth" is saying (and I tend to agree): The complexities of this trial, or any trial for that matter, are such that reasoned and informed positions are difficult to develop without a full understanding of both the legal and human issues involved.

On the surface it does appear to be a tragic miscarriage of justice, but the law, the legal system, and justice in general often move in ways and for reasons well below the surface.

I don't think anyone is "cool" with any part of this story...I think that what "Truth" is saying is not about the specifics of the case but rather the nature of the legal system and without being privy to all the facts and extenuating circumstances it may be difficult to fathom the judges decision. Most superior court judges who sit criminal proceedings are not very gentle or willing to be swayed by the tears of a 16 who has admitted his culpability in the deaths of four people while committing an act of social disregard...

To my way of thinking it might not feel right, it might not sound fair, it might not be what I would want to have seen happen, but I am willing to bet there is something going on beneath the surface that if we knew all the details would possibly explain the judges decisions...

Edited December 12, 2013 by wayoutofthebox

[Peikko 1,575]

I may regret making this post...I probably don't belong here...

I think what "Truth" is saying (and I tend to agree): The complexities of this trial, or any trial for that matter, are such that reasoned and informed positions are difficult to develop without a full understanding of both the legal and human issues involved.

On the surface it does appear to be a tragic miscarriage of justice, but the law, the legal system, and justice in general often move in ways and for reasons well below the surface.

I don't think anyone is "cool" with any part of this story...I think that what "Truth" is saying is about the specifics of the case but rather the nature of the legal system and without being privy to all the facts and extenuating circumstances it may be difficult to fathom the judges decision. Most superior court judges who sit criminal proceedings are not very gentle or willing to be swayed by the tears of a 16 who has admitted his culpability in the deaths of four people while committing an act of social disregard...

To my way of thinking it might not feel right, it might not sound fair, it might not be what I would want to have seen happen, but I am willing to bet there is something going on beneath the surface that if we knew all the details would possibly explain the judges decisions...

Depends what you mean by 'belong'. It's true that most of the posters in this forum are familiar with each other in an online message board posting sort of way but no reason not to post your opinion if you want to - but it does help if you are a tad thick skinned.

[sandinista! 1,816]

Yes, everyone who thinks this is absurd are all a bunch of dummies who have no comprehension of the nuances of criminal law and the legal system. Does this same paternalism apply when the system totally fcuks up and incarcerates poor black kids like Quantel Lotts for life for crimes committed as minors?

No.

Somewhere there is a proper balance and way to keep people safe from this guy, but probation and comfy alcohol treatment centers don't cut it for this guy's body count.

[Peikko 1,575]

Yes, everyone who thinks this is absurd are all a bunch of dummies who have no comprehension of the nuances of criminal law and the legal system. Does this same paternalism apply when the system totally fcuks up and incarcerates poor black kids like Quantel Lotts for life for crimes committed as minors?

No.

Somewhere there is a proper balance and way to keep people safe from this guy, but probation and comfy alcohol treatment centers don't cut it for this guy's body count.

Dummies? Well that's a bit OTT, but clearly the reaction to this sentence is not based on research into the case but based on a biased article and a perception that 10 years probation and treatment for alcoholism is somehow a cushy number. As we have no idea from the article exactly what is being proposed, how long the treatment will last, what happens after he completes the treatment program, what other rehabilitation measures are being proposed then the statement that this sentence is 'lenient' is based on emotion and not fact. Not the way I would prefer the judicial system to be run.

[wayoutofthebox 3]

Yes, everyone who thinks this is absurd are all a bunch of dummies who have no comprehension of the nuances of criminal law and the legal system. Does this same paternalism apply when the system totally fcuks up and incarcerates poor black kids like Quantel Lotts for life for crimes committed as minors?

No.

Somewhere there is a proper balance and way to keep people safe from this guy, but probation and comfy alcohol treatment centers don't cut it for this guy's body count.

This is why I don't belong here...

Emotional ranting and hyperbolic rhetoric that builds a strawman...pretty sure no one called anyone "absurd bunch of dummies"

Keyboard wars...a waste of my valuable time...I'm outta here

[sandinista! 1,816]

This is why I don't belong here...

Emotional ranting and hyperbolic rhetoric that builds a strawman...pretty sure no one called anyone "absurd bunch of dummies"

Keyboard wars...a waste of my valuable time...I'm outta here

No. I wrote anyone who thinks this (sentence) is absurd are all a bunch of dummies. ie, like we don't "get" the big, all powerful justice system, and are unable to form "reasoned and informed positions". To whose specifications?

Your post was condescending as all get out. And an appeal to authority. It was responded to in a like manner.

[Karee 4,190]

Dummies? Well that's a bit OTT, but clearly the reaction to this sentence is not based on research into the case but based on a biased article and a perception that 10 years probation and treatment for alcoholism is somehow a cushy number. As we have no idea from the article exactly what is being proposed, how long the treatment will last, what happens after he completes the treatment program, what other rehabilitation measures are being proposed then the statement that this sentence is 'lenient' is based on emotion and not fact. Not the way I would prefer the judicial system to be run.

I'm still waiting for you to point out the "biased" and "sensational" parts of that article. I suspect I'll be waiting a long time.

Edited December 12, 2013 by Karee

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I may regret making this post...I probably don't belong here...

I think what "Truth" is saying (and I tend to agree): The complexities of this trial, or any trial for that matter, are such that reasoned and informed positions are difficult to develop without a full understanding of both the legal and human issues involved.

On the surface it does appear to be a tragic miscarriage of justice, but the law, the legal system, and justice in general often move in ways and for reasons well below the surface.

I don't think anyone is "cool" with any part of this story...I think that what "Truth" is saying is not about the specifics of the case but rather the nature of the legal system and without being privy to all the facts and extenuating circumstances it may be difficult to fathom the judges decision. Most superior court judges who sit criminal proceedings are not very gentle or willing to be swayed by the tears of a 16 who has admitted his culpability in the deaths of four people while committing an act of social disregard...

To my way of thinking it might not feel right, it might not sound fair, it might not be what I would want to have seen happen, but I am willing to bet there is something going on beneath the surface that if we knew all the details would possibly explain the judges decisions...

There are no circumstances as far as I am concerned where one does not do time after killing four human beings. Period.

[Pooky 3,809]

If this is not the kid's first DUI, then I don't see how treatment is in any way a just consequence for the death of four people.

[lostinblue 1,989]

On the radio tonight this case was discussed. According to what was said the parents will pay for the shrink sessions. According to this talk show parents will shell out $420,000 for "treatment" with the shrink. One wonders if they could only afford to shell out 4200 this would have gone different. We can assume the best defense lawyer money can buy was involved. ......Judges and lawyers rub shoulders all the time. They attend the same dinners,parties ect.. Everyone knows everyone. Did this have any bearing on the case.......I have a family member who kill someone DWI ..... 10 years in prison and never drive again. He faced 30 years. agreed to 10. First DWI he ever had. Parents demanded 10 he got 10 ,

[GandD 5,966]

No. Just, no. Are you trolling here? Crappy parents and teenage alcohol use ( there's no mention of alcoholism, just use. The leap to alcoholism is strictly yours. And neither is the disease aspect of alcoholism or alcohol use in minors carte blanche) do not mean that nothing beyond probation and private alcohol treatment are an appropriate legal response to a 16 year old sociopath who mows down four innocent people, severely brain damages one of his passengers, paralyzes another passenger, and injures ten other people besides. Probation and treatment is for teenagers driving drunk and hitting an empty parked car. Not for Ethan Couch's body count. One of his victims was cut in half.

This was not his first legal run in either. He had a DUI before, and another time was cited because there was a naked, passed out 14 year old girl in his vehicle. Nothing happened then. Probation after those two incidents would be hard to swallow, but still appropriate. After the body count accrued? No. It's not about punitive measures, but about protecting people from this POS. Public safety trumps his rehabilitation potential.

Crappy parents is such a buzz word these days. Could this kid not have come to this situation with good parents? My parents were "good parents" from my perspective but I guarantee they don't know about the times when I lied to them or stretched the truth so I could cover my a$$ when drinking. BUT, due to the fear and morality my parents instilled into me, I made it through the drinking with perhaps a bit of perspective? Still, given the right circumstances and alcohol, can I say definitively that its impossible for me to have ended up in a situation like this? I'm not sure. But, would that have excused me from punishment? No. A case like this is always a shame but lady liberty must be blind to more than race and wealth.

Edited December 12, 2013 by GandD

[Dakine10 5,452]

Dummies? Well that's a bit OTT, but clearly the reaction to this sentence is not based on research into the case but based on a biased article and a perception that 10 years probation and treatment for alcoholism is somehow a cushy number. As we have no idea from the article exactly what is being proposed, how long the treatment will last, what happens after he completes the treatment program, what other rehabilitation measures are being proposed then the statement that this sentence is 'lenient' is based on emotion and not fact. Not the way I would prefer the judicial system to be run.

Prosecutors were seeking a 20 year jail term, which was the maximum allowed for a juvenile. Prosecutors elected not to try him as an adult. Probation was the minimum sentence possible for a conviction.

This sentence would have to be considered lenient by any definition.

[Penny Lane 8,159]

His parents failed to show him consequences for his actions or provide proper boundaries, so the justice system goes ahead and does the same thing, essentially. There is no justifying this far too lenient sentence. None. He killed four people and he won't see the inside of a jail cell for it. It's a travesty and I'm convinced that anyone who thinks this is remotely rational in terms of sentencing is trolling. They have to be.