Affluenza defense

If the parents continue to use their money to keep the child killer ,out of jail. Maybe we should rehab the child and send the parents to jail. Money talks and everyone with money walks.
 
I've always found the idea of a defense based on someone's upbringing/genetics/etc to be problematic. We are all a product of our DNA and life experience and all of our actions come from that. If you're going to excuse one person because of their upbringing then why wouldn't every single person ever accused of something be able to make the same excuse?

That said, I've told my wife before that if I'm ever killed because someone else made a mistake... like getting drunk and driving or something like that and they show remorse I don't want charges pressed or that person's life ruined. It serves no purpose. If I'm dead, putting this guy in jail won't do me any good and it won't do her any good either. If he's remorseful I seriously doubt he's going to repeat the mistake... so why ruin another life?

I know this isn't a popular opinion these days but I don't think people in these situations ought to go to jail. Take away their driver's licence, fine them, make them go to rehab, punish them by all means... but don't destroy one more life just because. Ask any family of a victim, it doesn't really make them feel any better.
 
Woohoo all us rich pilot types are above the law. Gonna grab my sword and get me some free tacos
 
cowman said:
I've always found the idea of a defense based on someone's upbringing/genetics/etc to be problematic. We are all a product of our DNA and life experience and all of our actions come from that. If you're going to excuse one person because of their upbringing then why wouldn't every single person ever accused of something be able to make the same excuse?

That said, I've told my wife before that if I'm ever killed because someone else made a mistake... like getting drunk and driving or something like that and they show remorse I don't want charges pressed or that person's life ruined. It serves no purpose. If I'm dead, putting this guy in jail won't do me any good and it won't do her any good either. If he's remorseful I seriously doubt he's going to repeat the mistake... so why ruin another life?

I know this isn't a popular opinion these days but I don't think people in these situations ought to go to jail. Take away their driver's licence, fine them, make them go to rehab, punish them by all means... but don't destroy one more life just because. Ask any family of a victim, it doesn't really make them feel any better.
Click to expand...

The punk isn't very remorseful.
 
N801BH said:
I give the spoiled brat 6 months and he will wrap his car around a pole and bleed out...... Justice will be done then...:wink2:
Click to expand...

Let the family start with blunt force trauma of their own choosing.
 
DavidWhite said:
are his parents politicians or something ??
Click to expand...

I don't think the affluenza defense benefits the parents in any way. Yeah, the kid gets off way too easy and he'll probably screw up again.

But the parents opened themselves up to one hell of a juicy civil suit.
 
cowman said:
I've always found the idea of a defense based on someone's upbringing/genetics/etc to be problematic. We are all a product of our DNA and life experience and all of our actions come from that. If you're going to excuse one person because of their upbringing then why wouldn't every single person ever accused of something be able to make the same excuse?
Click to expand...

While there may be various points of influence for someone's behavior, ultimately a person is individually responsible for his own behavior. Punishing parents for the actions of their offspring is one of the most irrational and irresponsible things that I've heard, with the exception of minor children who are not at an age where they can reasonably be expected to accept personal responsibility. Clearly, though, if someone is licensed to drive a car, he's personally responsible for what he does with it. Punishing someone else, or even projecting blame in such a case, teaches precisely the wrong lesson about personal responsibility, and in effect contributes to the problem.

The first thing taught in firearms training is that the person pulling the trigger is PERSONALLY responsible for every bullet that leaves the firearm, which seems acutely obvious. It is, until something bad happens involving a firearm, and then everyone from the NRA to the firearms manufacturer to the local dog catcher is to blame. It's human nature to want to shift blame to others, but it's becoming increasingly common for that shift to be accepted and even encouraged by those who should be models of personal responsibility in our society.


JKG
 
Last edited:
It's AAA's fault with cars. They lobby for the car manufacturers and the industry and their members are all evil car owners.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Fearless Tower said:
I don't think the affluenza defense benefits the parents in any way. Yeah, the kid gets off way too easy and he'll probably screw up again.

But the parents opened themselves up to one hell of a juicy civil suit.
Click to expand...

Depends a bit on the state but I doubt the parents have much to worry about in a civil case. Someone could go after a civil judgement from the kid--good luck collecting.
 
Witmo said:
Depends a bit on the state but I doubt the parents have much to worry about in a civil case. Someone could go after a civil judgement from the kid--good luck collecting.
Click to expand...


Unless the car was registered in the parents name..... Which you can bet your ass it was..........
 
16 year old, living at home, car owned and insured by parents, parents are on the hook. I'm no lawyer, but in every state that I know of the parents would be held civilly liable for the child's actions, not criminally liable. The exception would be if the kid bought and insured the car himself or was an emancipated minor, highly unlikely in this situation.;)
Unfortunately, I spoke with an old friend last night and his 17 year old daughter was involved in an accident that resulted in the other driver being killed. While the evidence of the accident was somewhat is dispute, she ended up taking a plea 2-3 years. Judge gave her 3 years.:( Great girl, 4.0 average in high school, just started college. The car belonged to his ex-wife, the estate of the person killed is suing his ex-wife, in fact HIS insurance paid the estate in return for not being named in the suit! So, the parents and their insurance company will have to pay a hell of a settlement in the near future.

Witmo said:
Depends a bit on the state but I doubt the parents have much to worry about in a civil case. Someone could go after a civil judgement from the kid--good luck collecting.
Click to expand...
 
N801BH said:
Make that families...... He ran down and killed four people..:mad:
Click to expand...

How much you want to bet that the kid's parents "donated" to that judges favorite charities, just in time for this decision?
 
Oh, and the report said the facility he's going to is $450k/yr.

Looked like a mansion.

His attorney implied his client would suffer because of no XBox, drugs or alcohol.

Really.

Disgusting.

And beyond the deaths were serious injuries, including one fellow paralyzed who looked to be a quadriplegic.
 
tumblr_m7hdagvgw61r9t9hvo1_500.jpg
 
FastEddieB said:
Just watched a report on this on last night's NBC News.

There's a recall effort already in motion.
Click to expand...

That poor judge...

No doubt he could sympathize with the boy's affliction, since he himself suffers from Assfluenza, a debilitating disease of the brain...
 
This is the stuff that happens when the courts try to do social engineering rather than enforce the laws. The kid should have been charged with murder and locked up! The judge should be charged with complicity and made to serve the little SOBs term in jail.
We each are a product of our upbringing, education, and life experiences. That some lawyer was able to successfully use it as a defense really means that all those people behind bars right now have a quantifiable get out of jail free card.
 
JGoodish said:
While there may be various points of influence for someone's behavior, ultimately a person is individually responsible for his own behavior. Punishing parents for the actions of their offspring is one of the most irrational and irresponsible things that I've heard, with the exception of minor children who are not at an age where they can reasonably be expected to accept personal responsibility. Clearly, though, if someone is licensed to drive a car, he's personally responsible for what he does with it. Punishing someone else, or even projecting blame in such a case, teaches precisely the wrong lesson about personal responsibility, and in effect contributes to the problem.
JKG
Click to expand...


The problem is, how can you put the blame on someone who is never taught right from wrong? Let's say a parent home schools a kid until he is 16, and let the kid beat up on his younger siblings whenever the kids likes, with no punishment whatsoever, because the parents believe that might makes right.

So at 16 they send the kid to school, and he beats the hell out of some kid because he wanted that seat at the lunch table. Is the kid really to blame when he has zero concept of society's version of right and wrong?
 
I saw an interview with the psychologist that invented the "affluenza" defense. Total whackjob that couldn't put a coherent sentence together.

Also the Judge is about to retire.

I would bet all of that kid's parent's money that the judge and the "doctor" are far more affluent today then they were before this case. I can't believe they were not bought.

If I recall correctly from the CNN interview, that judge sentenced another non affluent minor to 10 years for the same crime that killed 1 person.

God Bless America!
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
I saw an interview with the psychologist that invented the "affluenza" defense. Total whackjob that couldn't put a coherent sentence together.

Also the Judge is about to retire.
Click to expand...

So, he has more flexibility....
 
The mere fact of a different outcome for someone in a similar crime does not prove bias; it may simply prove a different defense strategy, or different quality of defense.

Not an excuse, just an observation.

The parents will be sued, and they (and their carrier) will pay a lot of money, none of which will bring those four lost souls home.

--

Edit: This "affluenza" defense is chicken dirt; to me, reeks of defacto sovereign immunity - and we have no king!
 
Just another marker in the 'You might live in a third world country' scale.
 
EdFred said:
The problem is, how can you put the blame on someone who is never taught right from wrong? Let's say a parent home schools a kid until he is 16, and let the kid beat up on his younger siblings whenever the kids likes, with no punishment whatsoever, because the parents believe that might makes right.

So at 16 they send the kid to school, and he beats the hell out of some kid because he wanted that seat at the lunch table. Is the kid really to blame when he has zero concept of society's version of right and wrong?
Click to expand...

He knew right from wrong; he just didn't think there were consequences for doing bad things. Thanks to that judge, he going to suffer the consequences--no XBox for a year!!!

The unfortunate thing is that there is an effective, proven therapy for Afluenza. It's call prison.
 
kkoran said:
He knew right from wrong; he just didn't think there were consequences for doing bad things. Thanks to that judge, he going to suffer the consequences--no XBox for a year!!!

The unfortunate thing is that there is an effective, proven therapy for Afluenza. It's call prison.
Click to expand...


Objection, calls for speculation.
 
EdFred said:
Objection, calls for speculation.
Click to expand...

Which is generally ok in opening or closing statements by the PA. It was not a question on direct or cross-exam. This wouldn't be objected to by any defense atty with an ounce of sense, because then he just makes it more obvious to the jury(were a jury impaneled), and a judge would prolly just wave his hand like; 'get on with it'.
 
Not surprised in the least. Time to get the little turd in jail, charge the mom with harboring a fugitive, and sue dad into oblivion.
 
JCranford said:
Not surprised in the least. Time to get the little turd in jail, charge the mom with harboring a fugitive, and sue dad into oblivion.
Click to expand...


Yup..
Best cure for "Affuenza" is to remove every penny from the family..

They will go from the rich section to the ghetto.......:yes::yes:
 
They could have lived like kings for a long time using cash in a 'ghetto' town. But, then they would have missed 'the season' in Puerta Vallarta. Money can't fix stupid.
 
They found 18-year old Ethan Couch and his mother, Tonya Couch,in a beachside neighborhood of Puerto Vallarta Mexico. After their detention, they were handed to Mexican immigration authorities for deportation, the statement said. I would hope they the U.S. would take their time to make sure his rights are not violated. Mexican authorities are takeing good care of him, might not be in a custom that he is used to or what our jails conditions are.
 
Last edited:
He got a helluva deal the first time around. Something unbelievable and surreal. But the fact that he was at a party a few years later didn't seem like a big deal to me. Parole violation, I get it, but I doubt that a judge would have done much more than give him a warning about attending any more parties.

Running off turned this into a major situation now.
 
Gerhardt said:
He got a helluva deal the first time around. Something unbelievable and surreal. But the fact that he was at a party a few years later didn't seem like a big deal to me. Parole violation, I get it, but I doubt that a judge would have done much more than give him a warning about attending any more parties.

Running off turned this into a major situation now.
Click to expand...

I thought that part of the stipulation was any partying/drinking was a violation of his probation. And any violation resulted in prison - hence the running.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top