What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

victim of wealth and privilege (1 Viewer)

fatness

fatness

Footballguy
Story

A 16-year-old boy who drunkenly killed four people got probation this week because the judge — with no apparent irony — agreed with the boy's defense that he was a victim of "affluenza," whose parents taught him wealth and privilege shield consequences. The teen had faced up to twenty years in prison.

Sixteen-year-old Ethan Couch admitted to four counts of manslaughter after he and seven other boys stole alcohol from Walmart, piled into his car and struck and killed four pedestrians while going 70 miles per hour in a 40 zone. One of his passengers remains in the hospital with severe brain damage, and nine other bystanders were also injured.

Couch's BAC was a .24 and he also had Valium in his system. According to reports, he was belligerent at the scene, at one point saying, "I'm outta here." Prosecutors were hoping to get up to 20 years.

Couch's defense was that he was a victim of his parents' wealth and privilege; in that he never had to face consequences, which an expert summarized prior to sentencing.

He said Couch got whatever he wanted. As an example, Miller said Couch's parents gave no punishment after police ticketed the then-15-year-old when he was found in a parked pickup with a passed out, undressed 14-year-old girl.

Miller also pointed out that Couch was allowed to drive at 13. He said the teen was emotionally flat and needed years of therapy. At the time of the fatal wreck, Couch had a blood alcohol content of .24, said Tarrant County Sheriff Dee Anderson. It is illegal for a minor to drive with any amount of alcohol in his or her system
Click to expand...
.
Click to expand...
 
Boner fuel for Fox News executives.

Having said that, its completely ridiculous. No clue how this decision actually happened in real life.

 
Judge Jean Boyd could have sentenced Couch to 20 years behind bars.

Boyd told the teen that he is responsible for what happened, but she didn't believe he would receive the necessary therapy in jail.

Loved ones of victims left through a back door. They had spent the afternoon speaking directly to Couch about how the crash changed their lives. They wanted him to serve some jail time.
Click to expand...
Prior to sentencing, a psychologist called by the defense, Dr. G. **** Miller, testified that Couch's life could be salvaged with one to two years' treatment and no contact with his parents.
Click to expand...
Defense attorneys asked that he be sent to a small, private home in California which offers intensive one-on-one therapy. They said Couch's father would pay the entire $450,000 price tag.

Prosecutors pointed out that the juvenile justice system also offers counseling.
Click to expand...
http://www.wfaa.com/news/crime/Defense-pushes-for-intensive-therapy-for-teen-in-drunken-crash-that-killed-4-235288101.html

 
So the argument is that he should be shielded from the consequences because he has always been shielded from the consequences before? If shielding him from the consequences led to this behavior, then further shielding him from consequences would lead to the same behavior, which means putting a killer back on the street. They're literally putting a killer back on the street.

 
I don't doubt that a kid could be ####ed up for life by getting everything he wants and being shielded from consequences due to money, priveledge, and coddling. In fact, in many ways, super wealthy kids can be as mentally and morally underdeveloped as poor kids who have much less support. But #### anyone who thinks this is a legitimate defense. In fact, if a parent has shown a complete disregard for letting their kid suffer the consequences of his actions, the kid should get the standard punishment, and the parents should face some kind of additional punishment.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Should be a zero sum thing. If it's the parents' fault, put them in the joint. At least let the families beat the kid with a bat or something. This is insane.

 
Apparently there are 5 lawsuits filed. http://www.cleburnetimesreview.com/local/x439239957/Fifth-lawsuit-filed-against-teenage-drunk-driver

What struck me about the first article is the way it appears that the parents' wealth seemed to drive the whole trial. Their expert's recommendation was followed, the parents got to select the treatment facility. Perhaps it's just the way the article was written.

The vehicle the kid was driving belonged to his father's company: http://www.cleburnesheetmetal.com/home.html

Cleburne Sheet Metal is a privately held corporation specializing in the fabrication and installation of high end architectural sheet metal goods for the commercial, industrial and institutional construction industries. Since its inception in 1986, Cleburne Sheet Metal has grown to become one of the premier architectural and structural metal roofing companies in the United States.
Click to expand...
When the steel beams they manufacture don't fit the columns, I wonder if they get to use the "our beams have never been held accountable before" defense.

 
bostonfred said:
So the argument is that he should be shielded from the consequences because he has always been shielded from the consequences before? If shielding him from the consequences led to this behavior, then further shielding him from consequences would lead to the same behavior, which means putting a killer back on the street. They're literally putting a killer back on the street.
Click to expand...
:goodposting: times infinity
 
I doubt there's even a written opinion in the case, so it's hard to know the exact reasoning. The kid was going to be in the juvenile system, so it's unlikely that serious jail time was ever really on the table. It was likely between Juvie and their counseling system and the (possibly) more comprehensive counseling offered in California. It could still be bogus, the shrink's web site seems to suggest that a great deal of his practice is serving as an expert witness for criminal defense attorneys. So I'm sure the guy knew how to present it.

I don't understand the decision, but I'm sure there's probably at least something more to it than we're getting from news reports.

 
fatness said:
Ramsay Hunt Experience said:
I doubt there's even a written opinion in the case, so it's hard to know the exact reasoning. The kid was going to be in the juvenile system, so it's unlikely that serious jail time was ever really on the table.
Click to expand...
From the first article:

The teen had faced up to twenty years in prison.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Also

A juvenile court judge sentenced 16-year-old Ethan Couch to 10 years' probation Tuesday for the drunk driving crash that killed four people.

Judge Jean Boyd could have sentenced Couch to 20 years behind bars.
Click to expand...
 
Alternative headline: youth who claims that wealth and privilege made him a sociopath unaffected by societal norms uses wealth and privilege to hire attorneys to shield him from being affected by societal punishment brought on by his sociopathic behavior.

This is a judge thing. If people looked at judges, who they are, who they have been paid by, and applied societal punishments on them, maybe this kind of thing would happen less.

 
fatness said:
fatness said:
Ramsay Hunt Experience said:
I doubt there's even a written opinion in the case, so it's hard to know the exact reasoning. The kid was going to be in the juvenile system, so it's unlikely that serious jail time was ever really on the table.
Click to expand...
From the first article:

The teen had faced up to twenty years in prison.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Also

A juvenile court judge sentenced 16-year-old Ethan Couch to 10 years' probation Tuesday for the drunk driving crash that killed four people.

Judge Jean Boyd could have sentenced Couch to 20 years behind bars.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
When I say that it's unlikely that a news article is getting this all correct, it's probably not that responsive to quote the news article. Seeing as how the article also specifies that the judge is a juvenile court judge and that the prosecution pointed out that therapy was available in the juvenile system, it's very likely that the article is inaccurate (the reporter likely looked up the statutory maximum for the offense without realizing that wouldn't be in play in the juvenile system).

 
Ramsay Hunt Experience said:
When I say that it's unlikely that a news article is getting this all correct, it's probably not that responsive to quote the news article. Seeing as how the article also specifies that the judge is a juvenile court judge and that the prosecution pointed out that therapy was available in the juvenile system, it's very likely that the article is inaccurate (the reporter likely looked up the statutory maximum for the offense without realizing that wouldn't be in play in the juvenile system).
Click to expand...
It's likely that your offhanded opinion was wrong in this case.

"it's unlikely that serious jail time was ever really on the table"

http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2013/12/10/deadly-drunk-driving-probation-sentence-leaves-families-stunned/

“She [judge] fashioned a sentence that is going to keep Ethan under the thumb of the justice system for the next 10 years,” Brown said. “And if Ethan doesn’t do what he’s supposed to do, if he has one misstep at all then this judge or an adult judge when he’s transferred can then incarcerate him.”
Click to expand...
 
The phrase "had faced" could mean a max, if he hadn't gone into the juvenile system first.

 
fatness said:
Ramsay Hunt Experience said:
When I say that it's unlikely that a news article is getting this all correct, it's probably not that responsive to quote the news article. Seeing as how the article also specifies that the judge is a juvenile court judge and that the prosecution pointed out that therapy was available in the juvenile system, it's very likely that the article is inaccurate (the reporter likely looked up the statutory maximum for the offense without realizing that wouldn't be in play in the juvenile system).
Click to expand...
It's likely that your offhanded opinion was wrong in this case.

"it's unlikely that serious jail time was ever really on the table"

http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2013/12/10/deadly-drunk-driving-probation-sentence-leaves-families-stunned/

“She [judge] fashioned a sentence that is going to keep Ethan under the thumb of the justice system for the next 10 years,” Brown said. “And if Ethan doesn’t do what he’s supposed to do, if he has one misstep at all then this judge or an adult judge when he’s transferred can then incarcerate him.”
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Just curious, have you looked up Texas law? I have. Judges in the juvenile system can find an offender guilty of delinquency and sentence them to "TCY", which is juvenile custody, for an indefinite term up to their 19th birthday. Juvenile judges can also assign probation, with conditions.

When Brown is saying that one misstep could lead to Ethan being incarcerated, he is talking about a parole violation.

 
This is a travesty of justice. If I were a judge I wouldn't be influenced by any background story as a mitigating factor in sentencing, and definitely not this one.

Generally, you see sob background story sentencing arguments from the other end of the socio-economic spectrum. For example, the defendant grew up poor and with little education so he was unable to appreciate the repercussions of his actions. Or the defendant has had a rough life where he has been physically abused, and his lifetime of abuse has caused him to act out. So please be lenient on him, your Honor.

To me, I don't care what the defendant's background story is because we still have innocent victims. Dead innocent victims in this case. The pain that those victims suffered and their loved ones are currently suffering does not change because Defendant A and Defendant B have different life stories.

bostonfred said:
So the argument is that he should be shielded from the consequences because he has always been shielded from the consequences before?
Click to expand...
:goodposting:

Buck Bradcanon said:
Boner fuel for Fox News executives.
Click to expand...
It seems like this would be more boner fuel for MSNBC or Slate News Executives who more typically assail privilege.

 
Judge Jean Boyd told the court the reason for the probated sentence is because she believes Couch can be rehabilitated as long as he's away from his family and given the right treatment.

"If he messes up, we'll be right there waiting for him," said prosecutor Richard Alpert.

If Couch violates any terms of his probation, he'll be re-sentenced for up to 10 years in prison.

Even if he'd gotten the maximum of 20 years in Wednesday's decision, his attorney says he likely would've served two years or less since he's a minor.

The judge will decide to send Couch to Newport Academy or another facility.
Click to expand...
2 years, 10 years, 20 years

 
Where are all the people that would normally be calling this kid a low-class thug who will never amount to anything and should be executed?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
GroveDiesel said:
WhatDoIKnow said:
Civil suits pending? Since the court ruled that it is pretty much the parent's fault, can the victim's families could go after them? :shrug:
Click to expand...
The kid is a juevenile which mean they could sue the parents anyway.
Click to expand...
...especially if they can show there was a pattern of conduct on the kid's part which should have put the parents on notice of his behavior and caused them to take away his access to the car. It sounds like this criminal defense strategy actually supports that line of thinking, so I'd say the parents clearly have money and their priority was keeing the kid out of prison as much as possible.

 
So what do we have? The next Lindsy Lohan? #### this kid. #### his parents. Ship his sorry ###, along with his defense, to somewhere to be stoned to death.

Schlzm

 
Last edited by a moderator:
If someone were to look at an issue of a famous pictorial magazine from the early 90's, they would find a full page picture of a young woman in tears in court apologizing to the family of an 8 month pregnant woman that she killed while driving drunk and on LSD.

I knew her well. She was similar to the kid in this story. She had no regard for anyone but herself. She slept with a guy,and when the guy she wanted to go out with (not even her boyfriend) found out accused him of rape. She wanted to go with a group of people to go see the Dead, but nobody wanted to hang out with her. She went by herself, found some "friends" but no ticket in the parking lot, and off she went.

After going to jail for killing this innocent pregnant woman and her unborn child (not to mention crippling an innocent bystander) she "repented" in jail and not only got out early, but got a full ride scholarship to a famous private school overlooking the beach in Malibu, California. With her jail time, she actually graduated only a year behind me.

These people need to go to jail for a long time, if not life. Killing a human being because you have no regard for life is inexcusable. If the families of the innocent deceased hunted down and killed these people, I wouldn't convict if I sat on the jury.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
fatness said:
Judge Jean Boyd could have sentenced Couch to 20 years behind bars.

Boyd told the teen that he is responsible for what happened, but she didn't believe he would receive the necessary therapy in jail.

Loved ones of victims left through a back door. They had spent the afternoon speaking directly to Couch about how the crash changed their lives. They wanted him to serve some jail time.
Click to expand...
Prior to sentencing, a psychologist called by the defense, Dr. G. **** Miller, testified that Couch's life could be salvaged with one to two years' treatment and no contact with his parents.
Click to expand...
Defense attorneys asked that he be sent to a small, private home in California which offers intensive one-on-one therapy. They said Couch's father would pay the entire $450,000 price tag.

Prosecutors pointed out that the juvenile justice system also offers counseling.
Click to expand...
http://www.wfaa.com/news/crime/Defense-pushes-for-intensive-therapy-for-teen-in-drunken-crash-that-killed-4-235288101.html
Click to expand...
Defense attorneys asked that he be sent to a small, private home in California which offers intensive one-on-one therapy. They said Couch's father would pay the entire $450,000 price tag.

​Ding Ding Ding. New entrepreneurial alert activated.

 
-fish- said:
If someone were to look at an issue of a famous pictorial magazine from the early 90's, they would find a full page picture of a young woman in tears in court apologizing to the family of an 8 month old pregnant woman that she killed while driving drunk and on LSD.

I knew her well. She was similar to the kid in this story. She had no regard for anyone but herself. She slept with a guy,and when the guy she wanted to go out with (not even her boyfriend) found out accused him of rape. She wanted to go with a group of people to go see the Dead, but nobody wanted to hang out with her. She went by herself, found some "friends" but no ticket in the parking lot, and off she went.

After going to jail for killing this innocent pregnant woman and her unborn child (not to mention crippling an innocent bystander) she "repented" in jail and not only got out early, but got a full ride scholarship to a famous private school overlooking the beach in Malibu, California. With her jail time, she actually graduated only a year behind me.

These people need to go to jail for a long time, if not life. Killing a human being because you have no regard for life is inexcusable. If the families of the innocent deceased hunted down and killed these people, I wouldn't convict if I sat on the jury.
Click to expand...
You were at Pepperdine? What year did you graduate?

 
GroveDiesel said:
WhatDoIKnow said:
Civil suits pending? Since the court ruled that it is pretty much the parent's fault, can the victim's families could go after them? :shrug:
Click to expand...
The kid is a juevenile which mean they could sue the parents anyway.
Click to expand...
The general rule is actually that parents are not responsible for the torts of a minor child. Depending on the state, there may be a statute in place that sets some liability. Absent such a statute, you generally need to prove a tort against the parents, such as negligent supervision.

And that's what makes the expert report interesting. Because it maps out a pretty nice legal proof for negligent supervision against the parents. If the kid is judgment proof, that's a pretty significant boon to the victims' families.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Schlzm said:
So what do we have? The next Lindsy Lohan? #### this kid. #### his parents. Ship his sorry ###, along with his defense, to somewhere to be stoned to death.

Schlzm
Click to expand...
In defense of his defense, defense counsel was just doing his job (as seedy as the public may find that job.) If anything, substitute the judge in for defense counsel in the stoning because the judge is the one who was overly influenced by the absurd affluenza argument.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

glvsav37
Lawyer guys and sports parents
Replies
16
Views
513
Todem
Todem
northern exposure
Healthcare For Seniors Sucks!
Replies
8
Views
377
Scoresman
Scoresman
C
Golf Story and a Question about Your Lowest Round (Where / When)
Replies
39
Views
651
BobbyLayne
BobbyLayne

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top