Say What? The "Affluenza" Defense?

[Dutch]

Texas teen Ethan Couch gets 10 years' probation for deadly DWI crash - CNN.com

I'm totally confused. Some kid gets drunk and kills 4 and he doesn't have to go to jail??? That seems like one amazing loop-hole in our justice system.

[sterlingice]

Send him to juvie and see how entitled he comes out.

SI

[Subby]

I totally said the same thing when OJ murdered those two people!

[sterlingice]

I think OJ was too old for juvie. Oh, wait, you meant... never mind

SI

[BillJasper]

Pretty sad state of affairs when a rich, white kid gets off the hook for having too much. A black or Hispanic kid would've done jail time regardless of how wealthy their parents were.

[JPhillips]

Suddenly people are shocked that the justice system works differently if you're rich. This is an extreme case, but money buys your way out of a lot of legal issues. How many bankers have gone to jail for the mountains of documented fraud?

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Suddenly people are shocked that the justice system works differently if you're rich. This is an extreme case, but money buys your way out of a lot of legal issues. How many bankers have gone to jail for the mountains of documented fraud?

But fraud and murder are two separate things.

[Dutch]

I honestly didn't realize that money got you out of this kind of thing though. If it is extreme (aka rare) then okay, whatever. But I'm not interested in what your excuse is when you kill somebody. I'm interested in how many years in prison you get for that. Outside of a couple NFL'ers...I always assumed everybody did time for killing while drunk.

[ColtCrazy]

Okay, so they put him on probation because he was too entitled, yet the punishment completely continues this entitlement. Yeah....that's showing 'em!

[miami_fan]

Being poor + having no limits = jail time

Being rich + having no limits = probation

Got it

[Lathum]

Thats disgusting, but what are the odds this kid doesnt step out of line again?

Also, if it is the parents fault for raising him that way shouldn't they be help accountable and do some time?

[Dutch]

As a parent, my job is to teach my kids right from wrong, and if they fuck up, well, good luck to ya. I can't control another human being 24/7 and I don't want to. If they don't want to learn from me, learn from the justice system. However, in this case, the justice system is really letting us down.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I thought this was an interesting tidbit to ponder ... the judge responsible for this decision isn't exactly low-profile/lacking influence within her profession

{snip}

Jean Boyd of Fort Worth serves as the 323rd Family District Court judge. She is chair of the Juvenile Justice Committee of the Judicial Section of the State Bar of Texas and has previously served as Chair of the Juvenile Law Section of the State Bar of Texas.

Jean Boyd - Texas State Directory Online

[JonInMiddleGA]

Aaaaand with a little more Googling, it's not her first ruling to come under fire.

Teen who hit 66-year-old pizza man with baseball bat won't stand trial as an adult (Ft Worth TX )

[JonInMiddleGA]

Aaaaaand also interesting to note that, back in June, the judge announced her plans to retire at the end of her current term (expires Dec 2014).

Veteran family court judge steps aside | Fort Worth | News from Fort Worth, Dallas, Arli...

edit to add: If you dig a little more on the internet, you might run across some folks who have questioned her relationship with some firms that receive grant money for taking on youth sentenced to their services by her court.
Jus sayin.

[Ryan S]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

But fraud and murder are two separate things.

This case would be involuntary manslaughter rather than murder.

[RainMaker]

I know having money helps with legal defense and other stuff, but never really heard of it being an excuse to get away with murder. That's one of the more ridiculous rulings I've heard.

[cartman]

She's just following Gov. Rick Perry's mantra of keeping the government out of people's lives.

[Senator]

Been close to this case for awhile. My nephew was asked to go on this joyride with his "friends" and only didn't because he was leaving on vacation with his family. His close buddy who went ahead is the one paralyzed and can only communicate by blinking his eyes. They didn't even know the driver very well. 4 good people dead, and others paralyzed or in rehab, and this is result. Let's say that the outcry locally has been large. As for my nephew, he is getting some tough love from his uncles in spite of my sisters protest.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Fwiw, one of the numerous articles I ran across suggested that the reasoning for this was because the judge mentioned that she'd had problems getting offenders sentenced to state-run treatment programs to actually be assigned to any of them. (another article on a different case mentioned the same sort of complaint by the judge, suggesting that this might be a case of her being on one of her standard soapbox topics)

His attorneys also noted that a 20-year sentence could have actually led to him be released in as little as 2 years compared to this sentence leaving him under court supervision for 10 years.

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

His attorneys also noted that a 20-year sentence could have actually led to him be released in as little as 2 years compared to this sentence leaving him under court supervision for 10 years.

But if he were released in two years, wouldn't he still have to report to a parole officer for a good long time afterward? Seems to me like two years then parole would've been far fairer than what happened here.

[cartman]

It is possible in Texas for juvenile offenders to be transitioned to the adult system when they turn 19, for certain offenses. Intoxication manslaughter is one of those offenses.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

But if he were released in two years, wouldn't he still have to report to a parole officer for a good long time afterward? Seems to me like two years then parole would've been far fairer than what happened here.

Not necessarily (at least under Georgia law, no clue what the Texas provisions might be).

FTR, I'm definitely not defending the decision at all (I suspect it was a straight up bribery situation if you want to know the truth about my opinion), I just shared that explanation I'd read because it at least made more sense than the story on its face.

[cartman]

Here are a couple of links about how things are handled for juveniles in Texas:

http://www.tjjd.texas.gov/about/how_movethru.aspx
http://www.tjjd.texas.gov/about/sent...offenders.aspx

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by cartman

Here are a couple of links about how things are handled for juveniles in Texas:

http://www.tjjd.texas.gov/about/how_movethru.aspx
http://www.tjjd.texas.gov/about/sent...offenders.aspx

So if I read this right:

In 2007, the law was changed again and sentenced offenders must be discharged from TJJD supervision by their 19th birthday. If they have not completed their sentence prior to their 19th birthday or have not been transferred to TDCJ –ID by their 19th birthday, they are transferred to adult parole supervision to complete the remainder of their sentence.

If he had been released after serving time in Juvenile until he was 19, he would still been supervised by the adult parole?

[cartman]

Either parole, or transferred to the adult system to finish his sentence.

[SirFozzie]

Never mind the Kid.. (whose folks are planning to ship him to a $450,000/year rehab center).. the judge should be sentenced to twenty years.

What a fucking joke

[Senator]

Startle gram editorial.
16-year-old’s sentence is hard for all
Posted Wednesday, Dec. 11, 201314 comments PrintReprintsMore Sharing ServicesShare
ARTICLE


Prosecutors, victims’ family members and apparently a lot of other people were disappointed Tuesday when a Keller 16-year-old was sentenced to 10 years’ probation for driving drunk and causing collisions that killed four people and critically injured two others in June.

To them, the punishment doesn’t match the crime. The teen, whose blood-alcohol level measured three times the legal limit the night of June 15 after the wreck on Burleson-Retta Road, pleaded guilty to four counts of intoxication manslaughter and two counts of intoxication assault causing serious bodily injury.

All that disappointment is understandable. Still, a judgment that it was wrong misses the point of the Texas juvenile justice system.

That system is built not on punishment but on taking account of an offender’s age, offering a chance at rehabilitation and a productive life.

This case is tragic for all involved. What seemed to make it worse for some was that the teen’s parents are wealthy, and he’s led a privileged life.

His parents offered to pay for long-term treatment at a facility near Newport Beach, Calif., that can cost more than $450,000 a year.

“Money always seems to keep [the teen] out of trouble,” Eric Boyles, whose wife and daughter were killed in the wreck, said after District Judge Jean Boyd delivered the sentence. “Ultimately today, I felt that money did prevail. If [he] had been any other youth, I feel like the circumstances would have been different.”

Mike Hashimoto an editorial writer for The Dallas Morning News, concluded on the newspaper’s website that Boyd “did pretty much what his parents had always done, which is let him skate.”

The teen, Hashimoto wrote, “didn’t learn a thing he didn’t already know: It’s far better to come from that wealthy place where actions seldom have those nasty old consequences. That’s for other folks.”

Emotional language, and well put. But it fails to take into account all of the circumstances of the case.

And it fails to take into account Boyd’s 26 years of experience in the juvenile justice system, first as a prosecutor, then as an associate judge and for the past 19 years as the top judge on Tarrant County’s juvenile court.

Her years on the bench have been filled with tough cases, the worst felonies and most troubled juvenile offenders this large urban county has to offer.

She’s rendered judgments on these tough cases time after time — and Tarrant County voters have continued to re-elect her.

Boyd did not to run again and will leave office when her current term ends a year from now.

Ignore for now rehabilitation on which Texas has built its juvenile justice system. Look at the law under which prosecutors sought a 20-year sentence for this teen.

That’s called a “determinate sentence” for juvenile offenders, something the Legislature added to the law in 1987 and has revised several times since.

Intoxication manslaughter is one of the serious offenses that qualify for a determinate sentence.

The law says offenders sent to one of the state’s juvenile facilities can be kept there only until their 19th birthday.

Then they must be sent to an adult prison or back to adult parole supervision in their home counties.

In court on Tuesday, Boyd said her experience tells her some offenders never get the kind of therapy they need from the programs in Texas juvenile justice facilities.

State figures show that 73 percent of the juveniles released from those facilities are back or are arrested again as adults within three years.

For this teen, Boyd opted for treatment followed by years of supervision.

None among those who say she was wrong have sat in her chair for 26 years. In this case, she’s earned our trust.

[corbes]

Far be it from me to throw stones from afar. But I don't see why you couldn't have a split sentence with some time up front.

[RainMaker]

I could care less if he gets therapy or not. He's a danger to society and we will essentially be putting the trust in his parents who raised the kid so poorly. 4 people is enough.

[Desnudo]

That's the next town over from me. It's not particularly affluent which is not to say some wealthy people don't live there. What I find interesting is that there is no mention of the parents names nor any comments from them at all. Usually parents are on the front lines taking the heat for their kids, guilty or not guilty.

They published his picture. I thought for minors that was generally considered a no no?

Also - they are probably exposed to a major civil suit since he was found guilty. So justice will probably be served in the sense that the family probably won't be able to afford 500K rehab clinics in a few years.

[Cap Ologist]

Can they sue for wrongful death in civil court?

[Karlifornia]

Heartbreaking. Guy lost his wife and daughter, and this asshole kid gets to go to some club med treatment facility and then go about his life. He should be an indentured servent to that dude forever

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Cap Ologist

Can they sue for wrongful death in civil court?

Yep. And the injured people can sue as well.

[Senator]

They already have.

[molson]

I've seen a million wackier defense sentencing arguments. It's what they're hired to do. We can't be sure what this judge's angle is though. Maybe she was in awe of the big-firm lawyers, maybe she sincerely bought the defense expert witness testimony, maybe it was a subconscious wealth bias, or maybe, like many Americans and American judges, she just doesn't think DUIs are that big a deal. The Boston Globe did a big story about this phenomenon, which includes judges randomly finding DUI defendants not guilty despite overwhelming evidence:

For drunk drivers, a habit of judicial leniency - The Boston Globe

I call them "DUI Patriots". There's something about DUI enforcement that these types find un-American, and see as representing government overreach. Edit: I think it has something to do with how efficient law enforcement agencies have become in prosecuting these cases - unlike anything else police do, it's scientific and routine. You record your observations, do the standard field sobriety tests, breath tests, all the associated warnings, the whole thing happens remarkably quickly. The subsequent trial is also quick and fool-proof (except in Massachusetts), because the testifying officer is an expert at this stuff and has done it a thousand times. And DUI defendants tend to have more money than criminals generally, so they might actually pay their fines. So some see DUI enforcement as the "profit-earning" wing of law enforcement agencies. These are also the guys who will insist that they're better drivers when they're drunk. I have no idea if this judge is one of these people, but that was the first thing that came to mind when reading about this case.

[RainMaker]

I also don't blame the defense team. Their job is to give the best possible defense for their client.

[cartman]

The Onion can be scary sometimes. Look at the date this was published.

Wealthy Teen Nearly Experiences Consequence | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by cartman

The Onion can be scary sometimes. Look at the date this was published.

Wealthy Teen Nearly Experiences Consequence | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

That is damn scary.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by molson

The Boston Globe did a big story about this phenomenon, which includes judges randomly finding DUI defendants not guilty despite overwhelming evidence:

For drunk drivers, a habit of judicial leniency - The Boston Globe

I call them "DUI Patriots". There's something about DUI enforcement that these types find un-American, and see as representing government overreach. Edit: I think it has something to do with how efficient law enforcement agencies have become in prosecuting these cases - unlike anything else police do, it's scientific and routine. You record your observations, do the standard field sobriety tests, breath tests, all the associated warnings, the whole thing happens remarkably quickly. The subsequent trial is also quick and fool-proof (except in Massachusetts), because the testifying officer is an expert at this stuff and has done it a thousand times. And DUI defendants tend to have more money than criminals generally, so they might actually pay their fines. So some see DUI enforcement as the "profit-earning" wing of law enforcement agencies. These are also the guys who will insist that they're better drivers when they're drunk.

That's probably because DUI's and speeding tickets are the profit-earning wing of law enforcement. That 80% acquittal rate sounds atrocious, but it's on the ~1000 cases that actually went to trial - 85%+ of first-time offender cases are resolved before trial, mostly with loss of license for a year and (relatively huge) fines. You're never going to get me to argue that anyone is a better driver when they are drunk, but I completely believe someone can be a better driver while drunk (at least around .1, not the .25+ the kid was at) than a different person can be sober. Having alcohol in your system is a risk factor, just like speeding is, just like text messaging or eating is, just like driving while tired is, just like driving a car with poor brakes or tires is, just like not signaling while changing lanes or merging is, just like a dozen other things are. This case is horrible and that kid should be going to jail for a long time, but I do believe that the focus by police departments is excessively on what can be easily/scientifically proven (BAC, speeding) rather than what's actually the most dangerous.

[molson]

Sure, there's plenty of other danger factors for driving, but the fact that driving while intoxicated is the one that's easiest to prove quickly in a trial is not some irrelevant factor. With limited money and time, it makes sense to go after the things that are easiest to prove and cause the most danger. And DUI deaths have dropped about half since the early 80s when law enforcement agencies started taking this seriously (though it's still something like 11,000 a year, which is a third of all traffic deaths.) There's not really a way to prosecute tired drivers until they fall asleep and crash into something (and they should definitely be penalized more harshly when they do). We had an anti-texting statute enacted in Idaho last year, I think it's been used less than 10 times. Because an officer really can't know that you're texting unless they're driving alongside you, or unless you admit it (and even if they see you fiddling with your phone, you can just say you were working the GPS, or trying to find a phone number to call, which would both be permissible activities in this state). But don't worry, there are those in law enforcement who want to take that much more seriously, and soon they'll be utilizing cameras to spy into your car from longer distances. (Unless they decide it's easier to focus on the drunks than to go down THAT road). Equipment violations are only infractions in most jurisdictions, and while there are some equipment nazi cops out there, most of them will "give you a break" on those since they're small potatoes. If the legislature cooperated, they could start throwing those people in jail, but then they're "criminalizing poverty". So ya, part of it is definitely that DUIs are "easier", but when you're balancing time and money with desired results, that's a totally fair judgment call to make.

And law enforcement agencies don't really profit themselves from criminal fines. Fines are paid to the courts (in the very rare case when they're actually paid). Every state deals with them differently, but there's usually a few different funds they go into, like a victim's compensation fund, the court technology fund, etc. "New police department coffee machine" is not one of the funds.

It's interesting to me that even though the U.S. is so law-and-order and prison-happy in most contexts, it's not the case with DUIs. The U.S. is one of the few countries in the world with a BAC limit as high as 0.8. Despite the fact (or maybe because of the fact) we rely so heavily on roads.

Drunk driving law by country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Noop]

Sad. As someone who wants to be a defense attorney decision like this make me pause a little.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Noop

Sad. As someone who wants to be a defense attorney decision like this make me pause a little.

Unfortunately, if you ever want to effect change in this arena, you're gonna have to build some credibility...and then means eating the crap sandwich for a while first.

[cartman]

The kid's dad was arrested for impersonating an officer.

Fred Couch, father of ‘affluenza’ teen Ethan Couch, arrested in North Richland Hills for impersonating police officer | Dallas Morning News

[Marc Vaughan]

It's interesting to me that even though the U.S. is so law-and-order and prison-happy in most contexts, it's not the case with DUIs. The U.S. is one of the few countries in the world with a BAC limit as high as 0.8. Despite the fact (or maybe because of the fact) we rely so heavily on roads.

Most of the chaps I hang out with here think I'm 'odd' that I won't drink at all when I drive, but you get indoctrinated into that in England - if you're caught DUI then you get the book thrown at you ... that and the fact that I'm a lousy enough driver when sober

[cartman]

Looks like a recurrence of his affluenza. Apparently he is now on the run with his mom, after videos surfaced of him drinking at a party.

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/commu...xperts-say.ece

[flere-imsaho]

I can't believe this was 2013.

[RomaGoth]

Rumors he and his mom left the country.

[BishopMVP]

Same thing happened in my town. Some rich asshole kid who I actually coached for half a year back in 8th grade (tried to talk to the parents, they were going through a bitter divorce and neither wanted to deal with him, so I kicked him off the team the 5th? time he showed up blazed out of his mind to an 8th grade practice) drove shitfaced, paralyzed a guy, picked up multiple witness intimidation counts including on a DA, had his lawyer explain he was taking "medical marijuana" for anxiety etc. He got 30 days in jail and 2.5 years probation. And then showed up back at the high school the next year (as a 19y/o Senior, because he'd been kicked out of at least 3 prep schools) and continues selling drugs, using drugs, and probably driving drunk around town.

Lord knows I'm not exactly the most stringent person on drunk driving, and I'm not usually a fan of mandatory minimums, but if you are convicted of driving drunk, when it kills or injures other people, and the accident is clearly your fault? That should be a 10-year minimum sentence. This is probably what pisses me off about this topic is that everyone pays lip service to drunk driving being terrible, but when push comes to shove the actual actions of people in power are laughable. Why would any kid at my HS believe that you will be punished for drunk driving when they see a kid like that back in his old life like nothing happened?

[Julio Riddols]

Man, I don't think I have seen anyone who looks like more of a shit than this Couch asshole.