I have mixed thoughts and emotions on this.
What really bugs me is a psychologist creating "affluenza" as a defense. I have not look at the DSM in over 2 decades but my guess is that it is not a recognized psychological disorder. Yes, I can see that the parents bear some responsibility here, but there are limits to what a parent can control. Did the parents really need to tell the son that it is wrong to 1) steal--they stole beer to start this cascade of events and 2) drive drunk--I am pretty sure there are enough media messages coming down against that. I am betting that somewhere along the lines of getting a license he stumbled across that prohibition.
I am guessing the civil suits are just beginning too.
I cannot say I know Texas law and it sounds like while some see the penalty as lenient it appears to within the judge's discretion. While probation may seem lenient it also gives the kid zero room for error for the next 10 years. I would like to see in-patient treatment (the article is not clear on that) at a minimum security facility.
I found it interesting that the judge is not going to let the kid go back to his parents.
As I type this, I am changing to see it as being too lenient. I can certainly see cases where a psychological condition can mitigate the sentence, but I would not consider being affluent a condition that would fall into my thinking. He made several poor choices that led to the death and injury of others. Probation (even as I note above) seems lenient. My guess is that the kid will screw up (hopefully not hurting someone this time) and end up going to prison.
Ridiculous. I can't believe a judge would allow an "affluenza" defense. A bad upbringing should not be a defense to drunk driving. If a bad upbringing where parents don't set limits is really a defense, that would apply to a huge percentage of people in prison.
luv2run wrote:
I have mixed thoughts and emotions on this.
What really bugs me is a psychologist creating "affluenza" as a defense. I have not look at the DSM in over 2 decades but my guess is that it is not a recognized psychological disorder. Yes, I can see that the parents bear some responsibility here, but there are limits to what a parent can control. Did the parents really need to tell the son that it is wrong to 1) steal--they stole beer to start this cascade of events and 2) drive drunk--I am pretty sure there are enough media messages coming down against that. I am betting that somewhere along the lines of getting a license he stumbled across that prohibition.
I am guessing the civil suits are just beginning too.
I cannot say I know Texas law and it sounds like while some see the penalty as lenient it appears to within the judge's discretion. While probation may seem lenient it also gives the kid zero room for error for the next 10 years. I would like to see in-patient treatment (the article is not clear on that) at a minimum security facility.
I found it interesting that the judge is not going to let the kid go back to his parents.
As I type this, I am changing to see it as being too lenient. I can certainly see cases where a psychological condition can mitigate the sentence, but I would not consider being affluent a condition that would fall into my thinking. He made several poor choices that led to the death and injury of others. Probation (even as I note above) seems lenient. My guess is that the kid will screw up (hopefully not hurting someone this time) and end up going to prison.
The judge is looking for an appropriate facility for his treatment. Why a jail wouldn't cut it is beyond me.
Did w bush use affluenza when his daddy paid the bribes to keep him out of jail for his drunk drivings and cocaine?
What about limbaugh when he got caught for felony drug crimes and didn't do time? Affluenza?
Good job comparing using drugs vs killing 4 people.
Cancellara wrote:
Did w bush use affluenza when his daddy paid the bribes to keep him out of jail for his drunk drivings and cocaine?
What about limbaugh when he got caught for felony drug crimes and didn't do time? Affluenza?
Just read about this in the New York Times.
What a tragic story. I can't believe this kid killed 4 people, including a woman and her daughter. I wonder if his parents can be held responsible? I mean, he was 16 and driving their car.
eight person accident
well, I know someone (drunk) who killed 4, two duck hunters (and two badly injuried), and two best men at a wedding (and two injured).....
byw; duck hunters were not drinking
...... the accident was so bad not sure who was drinking and driving...there were four young boys (around twenty) had left a wedding (groom and best men) with a keg of beer in the back of truck (all were drunk), it was about 430am when they left speeding down a empty country road with a four way stop a head, they decided to not to stop traveling at a high rate of speed when they crashed into the duck hunters....all in the mid 30s and family men with very good jobs...two were killed...two badly hurt...two boys were killed two were badly hurt....no one went to jail or had probation....
Why is it that when you kill someone, you get more punishment. If I'm a good drunk driver and miss killing people, am I alright?
Last year, this same judge sent a 14 year old black teenager to prison for 10 years. The black teen was in a fight.
This has shades of the black woman in Florida who was sent to prison for 10 years. Her husband attacked, she shot her gun into the air to wrd him off , claimed she was "standing her ground" but was still sent to prison for 10 years.