View Full Version : Affluenza "diagnosis" used for teenage defendent in DUI case
SimplyAlicia
12-13-13, 11:03am
Wow (http://seattletimes.com/html/nationworld/2022445799_apxnorthtexasdeadlywreck.html#.UqopnHVN Mg4.facebook).
ToomuchStuff
12-13-13, 11:23am
Being the defendant is 16 and the ages of the victims, the parents face financial liability, as well as those of his passengers, potentially (if passengers were any kind of a distraction, they have some liability). That would put them on the hook for earnings (as an insurance company would view if one lost a limb or such) for their estimated lifetime, per victim, as well as the emotional damage/counseling, etc.
Interesting one word first post. (hopefully you have viewed the site and didn't just find everything linked to that word to link a post to)
SimplyAlicia
12-13-13, 5:58pm
I've been on this site for years (since before it migrated over from The Simple Living Network). Different user name now as I was unable to recover my previous username/password. In my defense?
I think it's interesting that affluenza is being used as psychological reason/justification for a criminal activity.
ToomuchStuff
12-14-13, 1:26am
I've been on this site for years (since before it migrated over from The Simple Living Network). Different user name now as I was unable to recover my previous username/password. In my defense?
I think it's interesting that affluenza is being used as psychological reason/justification for a criminal activity.
If your user name was before it migrated, unfortunately that stuff appears to all be gone. I've been on boards where something, that is a keyword for those boards comes up, and someone joins just to post something that has happened to them, that has nothing to do with the site (other then that word). I feared you were related to one of victims, and posted, just in anger.
I am not surprised by that defense a bit. I would call that a celebrity defense, just without the "team" of lawyers.
Back in the Olden Days of Yore we called it "spoiled brat" (like the article mentions) and you didn't have to be rich to be "spoiled rotten".
I think it's interesting that affluenza is being used as psychological reason/justification for a criminal activity.
Sad is the word that came to mind for me. Given the current condition of our legal system I suppose it was only a matter of time.
gimmethesimplelife
12-14-13, 8:31pm
OK, I have to say I am indeed one of the liberals here but you know what? This takes the cake! Absolutely insane. I wonder if it's contagious, I wouldn't mind having some of the money behind this BS diagnosis of affluenza but the difference with me is that I would not use it as an excuse to be irresponsible and cause suffering to others. I gotta say on this one I take what I consider a conservative stance and I'm not embarrassed to do so this time. Rob
goldensmom
12-14-13, 8:45pm
I am not surprised by that defense a bit. I would call that a celebrity defense, just without the "team" of lawyers.
I'm not surprised by the defense either. Anyone can claim anything for a defense. I am, however, shocked by the ruling.
ApatheticNoMore
12-14-13, 9:01pm
So it's really a case of a separate law applies to the rich than the poor (is that new?). Only instead of it being de facto the case, they are trying to use it as an actual defense maneuver?
The 20 year sentence proposed for a juvenile was ridiculously excessive but apparently he might only serve 2 years if he got that sentence (prison sentencing seems to have about as much relationship to time served as your medical bill does to how much is actually charged I guess).
Reading the article, he is going to be monitored by the law for 10 years, will have a criminal record and probably be unemployable all his life.
Not sure what the message of all this might be but affluenza is not a defense. Creative defense lawyers!
Imagine family being willing to pay $475,000 therapy.
I would imagine that there will be a contingency-based civil suit filed.
Actually, I think 'Wow' pretty much sums it up.
gimmethesimplelife
12-15-13, 1:59am
Actually, I think 'Wow' pretty much sums it up.Agreed 100%. Rob
ApatheticNoMore
12-15-13, 2:16am
Reading the article, he is going to be monitored by the law for 10 years, will have a criminal record and probably be unemployable all his life.
Imagine family being willing to pay $475,000 therapy.
yea it's hard to imagine that kind of money really truly being compatible with unemployable for life. So yes that might apply to someone of much lesser means ... but.
I've heard of expensive rehabs where people with some money go, I've visited them (not for myself), they're nice, but then still we're not talking 6 figures in cost.
catherine
12-15-13, 10:20am
Did you see the rehab on Anderson Cooper? Geez--sign me up!
Plus, what is he being treated for? Being irresponsible? Entitled? Callous? Arrogant? (Apparently as he was running away, he shouted to his friends something like "Don't worry--I'm Ethan Couch. My dad will get us off")
I'm not sure he's been shown to have an alcohol addiction, has he? Wasn't this simply "teen gone wild" behavior? Or does this rehab have a treatment program for "affluenza?" I wonder if "affluenza" is part of the new DSM-5.
Really sad. How about a retrial with a different judge??
Really sad. How about a retrial with a different judge??I think this whole thing is a travesty, but do you really think we should simply try people over and over again until we get a desired result?
I think this is a logical result of injecting social factors into judicial sentencing, no different than giving another youngster a pass as a result of being raised in an environment of deprivation and poverty.
You're probably right Alan. I was just hoping they might be able to find a more reasonable judge, since they all seem to approach things differently.
I suppose if the kid seemed totally despondent and sorry for what had happened, it might be easy for a judge to think "why ruin this poor kid's life?"........but I keep thinking What if this kid had run over and killed one of my loved ones, I would want justice, for sure. We're far too lenient with criminals of all types in this country, and this does set a bad example.
I think this is a logical result of injecting social factors into judicial sentencing, no different than giving another youngster a pass as a result of being raised in an environment of deprivation and poverty.
And therein lies the rub, aye?
iris lilies
12-15-13, 1:36pm
You're probably right Alan. I was just hoping they might be able to find a more reasonable judge, since they all seem to approach things differently.
I suppose if the kid seemed totally despondent and sorry for what had happened, it might be easy for a judge to think "why ruin this poor kid's life?"........but I keep thinking What if this kid had run over and killed one of my loved ones, I would want justice, for sure. We're far too lenient with criminals of all types in this country, and this does set a bad example.
I don't have anything against the principle of judges making sentencing decisions based on a perp's background, behavior, life circumstances and etc and especially in the case of juveniles.
I take issue when the judge consistently makes poor decisions. That's when we need to kick the guy off the bench.
ApatheticNoMore
12-15-13, 2:20pm
Whether or not judges consciously make a decision to take life circumstances into consideration, do rich people who do a crime really face the same sentences as poor people who do the same crime? So what are you going to rail against? That (which doesn't necessarily have an easy solution) or one judge taking personal circumstances into account enough to issue a nonsensical affluenza diagnosis.
Plus, what is he being treated for? Being irresponsible? Entitled? Callous? Arrogant? (Apparently as he was running away, he shouted to his friends something like "Don't worry--I'm Ethan Couch. My dad will get us off")
I'm not sure he's been shown to have an alcohol addiction, has he? Wasn't this simply "teen gone wild" behavior? Or does this rehab have a treatment program for "affluenza?" I wonder if "affluenza" is part of the new DSM-5.
Well if he has a addiction problem (and it's at least as likely as the "teen gone wild" idea, addiction is terribly common and often unnoticed) the best shot is rehab. Addicts can do immense harm to others but the harm often stems out of their addiction. Sometimes jail (a sentence where they can actually see daylight) helps them as it is the "rock bottom" they need and the addict does have to want to change, but rehab is still often needed. But otherwise if he really isn't an addict and doesn't care about those he killed it seems to me your trying to treat frank psychopathy or sociopathy (interesting defense though: the rich are sociopaths anyway, what can you expect?). And I don't know if such a thing is possible. He might outgrow it?
I suppose if the kid seemed totally despondent and sorry for what had happened, it might be easy for a judge to think "why ruin this poor kid's life?"........but I keep thinking What if this kid had run over and killed one of my loved ones, I would want justice, for sure.
it wouldn't bring back the dead. The sentence did seem light, the suggested sentence very heavy.
I take issue when the judge consistently makes poor decisions. That's when we need to kick the guy off the bench.
sure
Also the article left me with a desire to read: The Golden Ghetto: The Psychology of Affluence
And are we sure this isn't a contrived internet hoax for the purpose of generating millions of hits and almost as many advertising dollars? Remember the preacher dressed as a homeless guy? How about the 'lady in 7A'? Manti Te'o anyone? You get the idea.
Whether or not judges consciously make a decision to take life circumstances into consideration, do rich people who do a crime really face the same sentences as poor people who do the same crime?
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-tCUsFq3TGng/Tu9U50XAz5I/AAAAAAAAEXY/C5-HD0UnC-I/s1600/0928_oj_glove_ap-1.jpg
I think the reason OJ got off was because of the jury. Funny about OJ though..........he seems to have gotten alot of years for robbery..........more than most people would get for the same crime. Karma's a bitch. :)
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-tCUsFq3TGng/Tu9U50XAz5I/AAAAAAAAEXY/C5-HD0UnC-I/s1600/0928_oj_glove_ap-1.jpg
off-topic, but the rumor I heard was that OJ took medication for arthritis. When he heard he'd have to try on the famous gloves, he simply stopped taking it and his knuckles swelled. When he went to court a day or two later, voila, they didn't fit.
Teacher Terry
12-17-13, 3:00pm
It is not a internet hoax-I saw the news report on the national news. I actually think he got away with something because his family was rich and this is a bunch of crap!
ToomuchStuff
12-17-13, 6:03pm
I think the reason OJ got off was because of the jury. Funny about OJ though..........he seems to have gotten alot of years for robbery..........more than most people would get for the same crime. Karma's a bitch. :)
A local killer had the same thing happen, where he was arrested on a bad check charge, and when he got out from that, threats were made against the one witness who disappeared. He was arrested when passing another bad check and given a really long time. Mandated sentences do not allow such use by Judges discretion.
gimmethesimplelife
12-17-13, 8:05pm
off-topic, but the rumor I heard was that OJ took medication for arthritis. When he heard he'd have to try on the famous gloves, he simply stopped taking it and his knuckles swelled. When he went to court a day or two later, voila, they didn't fit.I hadn't heard this but I sure would not put it past OJ's legal team and OJ himself. What a travesty of justice that whole charade was. Rob
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.